Would You Support Lower Income Tax, Increase GST?

Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 19:53
Last edited 29/06/2025 - 19:56

Raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to fund a reduction in income tax is one of those policy levers that governments sometimes consider to rebalance how revenue is collected. It’s a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption.

Pros

  • Incentivizes Work and Investment: Lower income tax can encourage people to work more and invest, potentially boosting productivity and economic growth.
  • Simplicity and Efficiency: GST is relatively straightforward to collect and hard to avoid. Broadening its base could enhance revenue stability.
  • Broadens the Tax Base: Consumption taxes capture revenue from all consumers, including tourists and people working in the informal economy.
  • Supports Long-Term Sustainability: With ageing populations and rising health costs, shifting to consumption tax may provide a more reliable revenue stream.

Cons

  • Regressive Impact: GST tends to hit lower-income households harder, as they spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services.
  • Cost of Living Concerns: Increasing GST may spike prices, affecting day-to-day expenses for families, especially essentials like food, healthcare, and education.
  • Compensation Complexity: To offset the burden on low-income groups, governments must introduce targeted transfers or increased welfare—which adds layers of complexity.
  • Sectoral Impact: Certain sectors, like retail or hospitality, might see reduced consumer demand, especially in times of economic stress.

In Australia’s context, where GST is currently 10%, any proposed increase would likely require negotiations with the states and could become a flashpoint for debates around equity, federalism, and economic reform.

Would you support higher GST for lower income tax? (Assuming the cost benefit is net positive for the overall economy and workers)

My 2 cents - assuming it was a meaningful reduction on income tax that would boost worker productivity i would support rising the GST i do not support Bordening the tax as the items that are exempt are exempt for a reason

Poll Options

  • 202
    I would support higher GST for lower income tax
  • 488
    I do not support higher GST for lower income tax
Financial GST

Comments

    • Dr Phil on 30/06/2025 - 08:07
      -2

      Obviously you have NO IDEA what negative gearing is.

      Or are you just joking?

      • ozbjunkie on 30/06/2025 - 08:10
        +11

        I think they are trying to match the suggestion about more GST in it's absurdity

        And negative implications for low income earners

        • Duckie2hh on 30/06/2025 - 09:36
          -6

          negative implications for low income earners

          How? GST is based on consumption. It would be reasonable to assume that the more you earn, the more likely you are to spend more (hence higher consumption and higher contribution to the tax system).

          • S2 on 30/06/2025 - 10:01
            +23

            @Duckie2hh:

            How?

            Person A makes $100,000 and Person B makes $10,000.
            They both purchase a bag of premium cheese to make pizza tonight for everyone in the family of 5 plus in-laws and maybe a few friends for $550, which is $500 + 10% GST. The GST amount is $50. That $50 represents 0.05% to Person A and 5% to Person B. Being lower income, that 10% GST is a far larger cost on the same purchase.

            • john_conner on 30/06/2025 - 10:42
              -3

              @S2: But cheese is GST free in Australia.

            • Duckie2hh on 30/06/2025 - 13:34
              -6

              @S2: Yes correct its all based on consumption. If Person B is wanting to spend on premium cheese and have less in their pocket at the end of the day, it is up to them. I would argue that Person A would have a larger discretionary spend compared to Person B. So if you look at overall picture, Person A will pay more GST as a whole compared to Person B.

              This isn't a nanny state country. Everyone is free to do what they like and spend how they like (even to their own detriment).

              • S2 on 30/06/2025 - 14:28
                +10

                @Duckie2hh:

                I would argue that Person A would have a larger discretionary spend compared to Person B.

                Okay.
                The example was to demonstrate how GST has a more negative impact on low income earners. Your argument doesn't change that.

            • OzRealityBites on 30/06/2025 - 19:15
              -4

              @S2: Person B has a family of 5 surviving on a single $10,000 income (at the current minimum wage they are only working 7.9hrs per week), presumably they are permanent residents, (ie. not citizens, or they would be getting goverment supplements to that low income).

              In any case they have vastly bigger issues than the GST, with just $192/week for all of their food and other living expenses for five people. They won't be buying cheese very often. Should we setup a GoFundMe for this poor family, maybe the inlaws could chip in as well ?

            • Purp on 01/07/2025 - 09:24
              -3

              @S2: if you're spending 550 for dinner but make only 10,000 that's a you problem making bad choices.

              what's wrong with a pack or 2 of migoreng spicy noodle, live within your means

              • S2 on 01/07/2025 - 17:02
                +4

                @Purp: It was an extreme example to illustrate the GST impact on two different income levels.
                There is no need to attack the lower income earner, their choices, or their problems.

            • Salternative on 01/07/2025 - 18:11
              -1

              @S2: Thats the most simplistic verging on dumb example i have heard of.

              Person B will also get FTB a and B of $1271 /ft nett or $33,046/year , plus rental assistance or a public housing unit .
              plus newstart ,plus additional benefits if they are aboriginal, plus parenting payment , plus zero childcare expenses .
              taking all that into consideration Person A clears less than person B on a holistic basis .

              GST is an inherently fairer tax as it taxes consumption, if the govt is subsidising your existence to the eyeballs, the you should be grateful, not cry poor . Count yourself lucky you are in australia, which provides you so much, anywhere else you would be in the street getting shafted by a baseball bat in your anus.

              • S2 on 01/07/2025 - 18:45
                +1

                @Salternative:

                you should be grateful, not cry poor

                I agree with you. I am unsure if you're referring to me or any imaginary person A/B being ungrateful in my comments or someone else's.
                Asking lower income earners not to be *attacked isn't being ungrateful. I just don't see a reason to attack at all.

                Count yourself lucky you are in australia, which provides you so much (sic)

                Again we are in agreement. I also think it's great because people spoke up in support of each other. Just sitting around being grateful may not be enough for the country to be so great.

                Edit: fixed spelling error.

          • H3R34TH4C0MM3NTS on 30/06/2025 - 12:58
            +7

            @Duckie2hh: yes but you forget that the more you earn the utility of that money is less and diminishes.If we look at your weekly disposable income is $2000. your first $1000 that you make is much more important than your second $1000 that you make as the first $1000 is there to cover essentials , your second $1000 while nice, you have much more freedom to make choices with that which won't impact your , now if you choose to spend that on vices or invest that well thats all for you .
            increasing the GST makes hits your first $1000 much harder than your second and as such disporportionately effects lower income earners as they don't get that second $1000 to choose what they want to do. we should have as system that puts a tariff on non-essential and discretionary spending like Luxury cars, so if you want to buy a lambo , you pay 100% tax on it or if you want to buy that yacht yeah tax the consumption and purchase of that. same with luxury homes, a greater stamp duty should be applied to those. lower the cost of essentials and increase the cost of luxuries is the way to go.

          • TheRealCher on 30/06/2025 - 13:45
            +3

            @Duckie2hh: this is not how the economy works
            the more you earn, the more you are able to save, not spend, invest in further tax reducing options.
            someone earning 20K a year is far more likely to have to spend a much higher percentage of their income/pension etc than someone earning 100k. unless you're going to tax mortgages and savings and land holding values (not just interest and not just rates/sales costs).

          • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2025 - 14:48

            @Duckie2hh: That’s a false belief (for some yes). But for others that’s not the case (some earn too much to consume what you’re mentioning)

            To understand this concept better.. the best part is when he gets to the Lamborghinis

            https://youtu.be/IeWGhDBlFp4

  • Jolakot on 29/06/2025 - 20:16
    +15

    Increasing GST while increasing the tax-free threshold seems like the best of both worlds.

    Income taxes don't capture much revenue from temporary immigrants or visitors, and much easier to dodge with tax planning or cash jobs.

      • dtc on 30/06/2025 - 09:49
        +9

        Did you already forget the stage 3 tax cuts?

        • jv on 30/06/2025 - 10:10
          +3

          Did you already forget the stage 3 tax cuts?

          Oh yes, they were the ones introduced by Turnbull/Scomo that Albo agreed were a good idea.

          https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/conso…

          • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2025 - 14:51
            +3

            @jv: And then subsequently ripped apart and reduced what everyone would get.
            Then proceeded to charge the Aus tax payer like a wounded bull to fund their excess spending.

            • jv on 30/06/2025 - 14:52
              -2

              @[Deactivated]:

              to charge the Aus tax payer like a wounded bull to fund their excess spending.

              Why have you changed the topic to Jacinta ?

  • JimmyF on 29/06/2025 - 20:18
    +14

    Would you support higher GST for lower income tax?

    You know any saving is only short term…. These gov leaches can't stop spending other peoples money, so have to tax us harder to pay for it all!

    • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 21:14
      -3

      Then don't buy anything, or just go overseas to China/America, and import the stuff yourself.

      • JimmyF on 29/06/2025 - 21:45
        +2

        Then don't buy anything, or just go overseas to China/America, and import the stuff yourself.

        LOL such wonderful insight to the problem at hand…..

        Australians are tax enough, we have a endless list of taxes, so it might be time for the gov to spend within its means, just like they keep telling us to do instead of inventing new ways to tax us more.

        • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 22:09

          Fair enough. I actually don't know where the money all goes.

          • JimmyF on 29/06/2025 - 22:55
            +2

            @John Barosa: Which is the problem. gov spends more money than is gets each year, turns around and tries to make it our problem!

            I'm not against tax, I'm against unchecked gov spending and extra taxes because they can't control themselves.

            Labour announced billions of spending to win the election, with no clear way of paying for it. Basically will put it on the tax payer credit card.

              • Jolakot on 30/06/2025 - 00:39
                +12

                @John Barosa: The UK tried this 15 years ago with austerity and its been train wreck after train wreck, worse on literally every single metric.

                Australia has one of the most cost efficient healthcare systems in the world, the US spends twice per person (total private and public spending divided by population) than we do, would be like replacing a Tesla with an F150 to save on electricity bill.

                You're not getting excess money to build a shiny new city with austerity measures and tax cuts…

                • jjjaar on 30/06/2025 - 07:49
                  +2

                  @Jolakot:

                  The UK tried this 15 years ago with austerity and its been train wreck after train wreck, worse on literally every single metric.

                  The NHS is deplorable now. I know a few Aussies that work in healthcare and have gone to the UK for a 2 year visa - they’ve been shocked by how appalling the standard of care is there.

              • jjjaar on 30/06/2025 - 07:47
                +8

                @John Barosa: Too many handouts to big business and multi national corporations for sure

              • JimmyF on 30/06/2025 - 09:04
                +4

                @John Barosa:

                Australia gives too many handouts. Australia isn't a rich country anymore, and shouldn't act like one

                So you agree with my statement that we have a gov spending issue. But it isn't the little people like you think, its the big end of town that is milking the tax payer.

                Cut medicare, it's useless, people should just private health insurance.

                Its not useless, it worked well until it was gutted to cost cut to pay soem fat gov pm lunch or airplane.

                US private health insurance is a joke, pay $3k/month in insurance, then still pay to see a doctor. Only to be excited your surgery bill was only $10k and not the $200k listed on the bill. Yeah that sounds useless.

                all while ignoring the per person, the US gov spends MORE tax payer dollars on healthcare than Australia.

                lower minimum wage to $7 AUD an hour, America's minimum wage is slightly higher

                So your answer is have people work for $266 a week before taxes aka ~$14k a year?

                LOL, how about you do that first and let us know how it goes living on $38/day before taxes.

                Kick homeless, thieves and any criminals out of capital cities, and force them to fend for themselves

                Enforcing a $7/hour min wage will just increase these issues. You can't even rent a campsite for $266/wk

                All the things you have listed won't do zero to address the gov overspending issue or their endless need to tax us more to pay for what they over spend on or pay for their lunches.

              • us3rnam3tak3n on 30/06/2025 - 12:06
                +5

                @John Barosa: This is some of the most myopic, barbershop, taxi driver, Pauline Hanson inspired policy I've heard in a long time.

          • Ponsonby on 30/06/2025 - 10:40
            +1

            @John Barosa: www.budget.gov.au

    • Joey2scoops on 30/06/2025 - 07:39
      +21

      If only the top 5% and businesses paid their fair share.

      • JimmyF on 30/06/2025 - 09:11

        This will help to balance the books for sure but our gov also needs to learn to live within its means as well.

        The problem we have is, that for every $1 tax they get, they spend $1.20.

        So tax the top 5% and business, bring in a law that if gov overspends, they don't get reelected and no pension. What the books instantly balance!

      • Peza on 30/06/2025 - 10:03
        +1

        As much as I agree, they aren't doing anything illegal.. they are playing within the rules.. (and have the $$ to get the advice to structure correctly).. and here lies the problem.. economy has changed.. tax overall needs reform in Australia and GST is only part of the answer, but the loopholes, giving away resources for next to nothing and privatising everything are other areas.

        • I am all for an increase in GST but relief for anyone under 100k
        • natural resources being stripped and sold of for no benefit to the population should be levied (for every x sold, we get 10% or something regardless of profit (like a one way GST to the future fund)
        • having private contractors looking after major construction works, NBN, roads/tolls, ports, gas/electricity, telecommunications, banks etc is a big no no.. it should be owned by the people for the people.. there should not be shareholder interests above national interest.
          Sure let the big boys play, but there should be a government own (or majority owned 75%+) alternative to keep them honest. (the super funds can invest for 'certainly - low risk')

        Lastly, we need more than a two-party preferred election system as the current two are broken - its like watching an episode of the three (or more) stooges with what we call leaders.

        Sorry for the rant, but we need to change course soon before we become the next UK or France with mass migration - (the parts main stream media fail to report on)

    • Dr Phil on 30/06/2025 - 08:14

      Correct!
      They will structure any tax change to collect more tax over time.
      Thats exactly what they did with the last changes to income tax.

      Short term gain - long term pain
      And immediate and severe pain if you are earning over $120K which many people these days do.

      • JimmyF on 30/06/2025 - 09:14

        They will structure any tax change to collect more tax over time.

        Yep, its why the tax scales are not CPI linked, so people move into higher tax brackets without them doing anything.

        When you start breaking down the average wage, most people will be shocked at the amount of tax paid once they spend it all. Its not just income tax or GST, its all the stamp duties, taxes on fuel, even rates and levies are a form of hidden gov taxes.

  • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:21
    +34

    No, I'd prefer a tax expert came up with an intelligent fair system that provided the things society needed. But long before either of your 2 options, which screw the poorest ppl the most, I expect a push from the plebs to make rich pricks pay their way and for a scrapping of NG and perks from capital gains and any other rich gifting from the ATO. The honeymoon should be well & truly over for parasites who dodge more tax than than most ppl earn. I'd also like less of these right wing posts regurgitated for an agenda.
    Tax reform needs less brain farts and more fairness from the bottom up.eg Miners should pay a water tax and a enviro rehab tax impost if they don't rehab their disturbed sites in time, and it should increase exponentially until they do. The LNP voter cohort should be forced to pay a climate change denial tax that can go directly to subsidise low income workers power bills.We should be taxing any company a hefty % for exporting our gas if they don't reserve gas for the domestic market at a peppercorn rate . If the GST raised it will be like the first piss you have at the pub. It will start the floodgates, and it will go up and up and up.If the ALP were stupid enough to even consider this it would eradicate them.

      • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:25
        +4

        BS. did you you see Chalmers at the NPC? What were his words? You're just fluffing LNP effluent again.
        Bringing something up, recommending and policy are 3 different paradigms.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 20:26
          -6

          Lol i support the change boss is Jim does it it would be a positive for this government my God learn to read because screaming nonsensical crap

          Income taxes are way too high like others sau the tax free threshold should be double what is currently is and the bracks should be indexed

          Also it is 'considered' not policy you need to learn how to discuss a topic without shooting off on junk tangents

          • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:28
            -1

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Lol i support the change boss is Jim does it it would be a positive for this government my God learn to read because screaming nonsensical crap

            ^
            Gobbledegook^^^
            You do it every time. Your OP is crafted by AI or a grown up, and then as you respond the real you dribbles out.

              • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:46
                +3

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Aaagh a lecture about shills from the most flip flop disingenuous player in the post area. You were called out after fluffing for Trump ad nauseam , and then dissing him as though nobody pays attention. Here you are again lane changing to drop another irritant into the oyster and hoping it becomes a pearl.
                I know tax reform is coming. Via a process the LNP would never consider. Consultation. I also know Chalmers is personally AGAINST a rise in the GST because of fairness, and it delivers SFA to the commonwealth debt. It goes straight to the states.So stop BS-ing and saying Jimbo is pro raising the GST.

                Why don't you add another choice on your poll, re making rich parasites, foreign raiders, life style leeches with $$ hidden in trust funds and sponging corporations pay up, and maybe they should do so with an underlying retrospective element?
                As if anybody with real skin in the game can't differentiate between the ALP and the LNP.

                TDLR
                You asked, I answered

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 20:49
                  -1

                  @Protractor:

                  TDLR
                  You asked, I answered

                  The Question - Would you support Lower Income Tax, Increase GST?

                  answer Answer

                  The honeymoon should be well & truly over for parasites who dodge more tax than than most ppl earn. I'd also like less of these right wing posts regurgitated for an agenda.
                  Tax reform needs less brain farts and more fairness from the bottom up.eg Miners should pay a water tax and a enviro rehab tax impost if they don't rehab their disturbed sites in time, and it should increase exponentially until they do. The LNP voter cohort should be forced to pay a climate change denial tax that can go directly to subsidise low income workers power bills.We should be taxing any company a hefty % for exporting our gas if they don't reserve gas for the domestic market at a peppercorn rate

                  LMAO ill leave it there - you have problems boss

                  As if anybody with real skin in the game can't differentiate between the ALP and the LNP.

                  lol 95% of their policies are the same or similar - ironicly this current government has been great for me so im happy for you to shill away in other places but just calm down a bit you dont always need to be triggered

                  • Crow K on 30/06/2025 - 12:52
                    +2

                    @John Barosa:

                    And he's ending the FURRY movement in it's infancy, instead of letting it go on like the gay one.

                    You've been wrong about all sorts of things on here today but I think this is the most interesting thing to be wrong about

                    Who told you the furry movement was in its infancy, and who told you Trump was ending it?

      • Salternative on 29/06/2025 - 21:11
        +7

        Yup, i am shocked at the miners over here, how do Gina Rinehart , and Twiggy Forrest , plus all other miners own vast swathes of land containing iron ores , make billions in revenue and act like they are doing the nation a favour by paying piddling royalty . The iron ore , O &G , all minerals belong to the nation . Most houses have a notation on title that you do not own the minerals below your house , but i guess that does not apply to the 1%.

        This nation is blessed with so much natural resources, why do they not do what the supposedly less smart middle eastern nations did and nationalise the resources or what the netherlands did with its sovereign fund . The answer is of course , we cant do that , gotta let the status quo be, dont rock the boat,dont piss of the americans , europeans , (large companies mostly run by Caucasians with old boy networks who run scare companies about chinese and asians ) , so what if such an absurd situation is happening where you have to buy back your own gas at a higher price.

        Here is another absurd situation , these old boy networks are so entitled that they believe that profits are for them and losses should be picked up by the taxpayer , and of course Mr Hockey, of the Poor people dont drive cars fame, is going to bat in for them for his thirty pieces of silver .
        https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/joe-hockey-goes-i…

    • OzRealityBites on 30/06/2025 - 19:24

      If we’re talking about “tax reform,” let’s stop pretending that raising the GST or cutting income taxes is anything bold or visionary. It’s the same tired trick—shift the burden onto everyday people while leaving the wealthiest and biggest corporations with their perks untouched.

      Negative gearing? Capital gains tax discounts? These aren’t policy tools anymore—they’re loopholes that widen inequality. They’ve done little to help housing or growth and everything to inflate asset bubbles and reward people already ahead.

      Meanwhile, our natural resources—stuff that belongs to the whole country—get ripped from the ground and sold off, and we barely see any of the profits. Mining giants and gas exporters rake in billions, but skip out on their fair share. At the very least, they should be copping serious environmental and export taxes. Don’t clean up your mess? The cost ramps up until you do. Want to sell gas overseas? Not before you reserve a decent portion for Aussies at a fair price.

      And while some basics like bread, milk, and nappies are GST-free (as they should be), the bigger issue is that GST—by design—hits lower-income people harder. When most of your pay goes into basic day-to-day needs, even a modest consumption tax bites deeper. It’s not about whether cheese is taxed, it’s about power bills, school shoes, transport, and cleaning products. These add up fast when you’ve got little left over.

      If we’re going to talk about real solutions, here’s what a fairer system could look like:

      Tax the top properly—wind back unfair perks, tax big inheritances and land holdings, and make sure income from assets is taxed like income from work.

      Resource royalties that work for us, not just shareholders. Pay to extract, pay more to pollute, and stop giving away what belongs to all of us.

      Environmental levies with teeth—if you disturb it, you fix it. Miss your deadline? The tax rises until it gets done.

      Keep basics GST-free but introduce higher luxury consumption taxes—on yachts, private jets, and mansions. If you’re living large, pay large.

      Clamp down on tax dodging with simpler, clearer rules—and real enforcement. No more shadow trusts and offshore games.

      Talk to people who actually know what they’re doing—bring in economists, workers, community advocates, not just think tanks and lobbyists.

    • sakurashu on 02/07/2025 - 14:27

      Which rich pricks? Individual high income earners are the most screwed and pay most of the income tax for the entire country

  • mskeggs on 29/06/2025 - 20:34
    +30

    "Incentivizes Work" is such a boomer thing to put in the pro column.
    How about a tax change that incentivises time with family and friends, or volunteering in the community or spending time in nature, or making art and music, or doing some exercise.
    No, promoting more work is somehow good! My employer gets more than enough of my time, I don't want to see the cost of goods and services rise so I get the "pro" of giving them even more to afford them.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 20:37
      +1

      How about a tax change that incentivises time with family and friends, or volunteering in the community or spending time in nature, or making art and music, or doing some exercise.

      Im not against this idea i dont fully know how it wouldwork in tax reform but i would support some form of volunteering to reduce tax or perhaps things like government debt ie HECS etc

      probably my biggest concern is people rorting it we have seen how easily it happens in the NDIS and CMFEU government contracts

      • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:51
        -1

        probably my biggest concern is people rorting it we have seen how easily it happens in the NDIS and CMFEU government contracts

        Sounds like reverse shilling?

        Who's fixing those two problems, anyway (ALP) Who's rorting the most (not the ppl needing the NDIS but the same corporate parasites with an ideological link to guess which party? who sponge on any social support with the word 'care' in it's name (hint not ALP)

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 20:56
          -1

          Sounds like reverse shilling?
          Who's fixing those two problems, anyway (ALP) Who's rorting the most (not the ppl needing the NDIS but the same corporate parasites with an ideological link to guess which party? who sponge on any social support with the word 'care' in it's name (hint not ALP)

          they ALP 'state' government has helped cover up the CMFEU Victorias current Premier was the MP incharge of the porfolio for years - John Steka who is implict in a lot of 'allegations' was also a member of the ALP

          if we are talking the NDIS - the ALP is trying to fix a LNP mess your not incorrect however i think Shortern resigning from politics shows what a mess the NDIS is in but that isnt the ALPs fault i do think they are trying to make it a more sustainable system

          difference between you an me mate im no shill ill call good and bad on both sides - you wont - go lay down you need a nap

          • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 21:09
            -1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: ^ Wall of ???
            CMFEU??
            It's Ste            T**ka?

            I think you really should stick to things you know, or at least keep using ChatGPT to reconstitute your word amalgams in your replies. .You keep saying you call it via either side but always land on one. At least I'm honest about my lane. You can't even be honest about your motives.Or pick a lane. Lucky we know which one you live in.
            I'm wide awake and don't need any sleep tips, but thanks.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/06/2025 - 22:24

              @Protractor: Alright ill use an example you will like the Robodebt disaster under the LNP has also shown the government cannot be trusted in adequate revenue management - it has also shown when the government gets it 'wrong' there is little to no accountability

              Ill add this for someone 'who screams' about the environment you dont support consumption taxes is strange - these taxes aim to reduce needless consumerism which is good for the environment - it pushes people to buy what the need opposed to the needless list of 'wants' modern day society has

              • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 23:19
                +2

                @Trying2SaveABuck: The GST will save the environment. I've heard it all.

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/06/2025 - 22:08

                  @Protractor: are you saying excessive consumerism ie fast fashion, excessive use of plastics, over use of burning fossil fuels to transport stuff from all around the world to Aus etc is not bad for the environment?

      • NotAnExpert on 30/06/2025 - 08:46
        -1

        NDIS rorting isn’t as widespread as the government has lead you to believe. The only reason Shorten went on about it so much is so that suckers like you would cheer when they made the cuts.
        There are large disability providers going under and people are being left with no supports. These are registered providers who have been around for years and are doing the right thing by clients.

        And no the ALP isn’t fixing it. They’ve made it worse.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/06/2025 - 08:51

          I didnt cheer when Shortern left i might not agree with everything he stands for but i 'do believe' he cared about Australians and his electorate of Maribrynong

          I dont know if i support the 1.8m salary he is getting from Unis that cry poor but for the record Shortern wasnt a great Opposition leader but he was a good Minister his heart was in the right place losong someone like that is never a thing to cheer about it on either side but he knew the NDIS was a disaster once again it was meant to cost 20bn by 2030 itnis alread over 50bn in 2025 anyone who is defending it now is on another planet. I probably don't support scrapping it but out side of medical services/Allied health I dont think it should fund anything else

          Username checks out

  • happydude on 29/06/2025 - 20:36
    +15

    We should have a progressive tax system.

    The GST is a regressive tax.

    • arkie0 on 29/06/2025 - 20:40
      +1

      Exactly Norway Sweden Finland and Denmark have 25% GST/VAT. They are the most regressive taxing countries in the world.

  • Jaduqimon on 29/06/2025 - 20:36
    -1

    I fully support this.

    No income tax and way higher gst is the most fair. The more i use/consume, the more i get taxed.

    Make some basic food and services gst free.

    • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 20:51
      +2

      One way to tackle obesity. Starvation.

  • AustriaBargain on 29/06/2025 - 20:46
    +3

    Lower income people would benefit more from housing reform, they'd save thousands a year from rent alone.

    • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 21:13
      -1

      U know what would benefit lower income people even more? A new city. A real one, with real high skilled jobs. Not a posh no jobs area like Adelaide, not a tourist hotspot like Gold Coast, not an extractor city like Perth and not a useless city like Brisbane.

      Pay Atlassion, NAB etc all Australian companies lots of money, to set up an office, and sell nice big lots of land, to exclusively Australian citizens for low low prices. And build it near North West Australia, so we can be close to Singapore.

      • Jaduqimon on 29/06/2025 - 21:14
        +1

        nah then i'll just goto Singapore. cant beat Sydney weather.

        • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 21:19

          You'll go to Singapore? Go to Singapore? Singapore is an ethno state, pretty much only Chinese and really smart Indians/Malays get in. And non Chinese face discrimination.

          Plus no land ownership, no dual citizenship(Australian citizen is worth way more than Singapore), ur child will be forced to join Singapore army and no freedom of speech.

          If ur Chinese Singapore is a good deal, otherwise ur better of in America.

      • CheapandUsed on 30/06/2025 - 07:42

        new city. A real one, with real high skilled jobs.

        Best we can do is dump more people into Sydney

        australias-newest-city-starting-take-shape

    • tenpercent on 30/06/2025 - 07:16
      +1

      Housing reform?
      Like reforming the ever increasing demand spiral? i.e. reducing immigration until there are enough houses for everyone already on Australian soil today, including the 10s of thousands of newly homeless who are being displaced from the housing market by imports.

  • Benoffie on 29/06/2025 - 21:03
    +1

    Fundamentally, yes. Every review has said that, eventually, GST needs to be applied to everything and should really be heading towards 15%. It was never intended to have exclusions.

    Our current income tax system is cumbersome. Tax refunds should also be abolished unless it hits a predefined amount (say, $500+). The cost to taxpayers isn't recouped within the current limits.

    I dont agree with Henry's original plans on just giving out a proforma tax refund. I think that timing has passed.

  • original15 on 29/06/2025 - 21:06
    -1

    Don’t increase GST, we will see even more TRS posts.
    Where’s that link on how much the TRS costs to run and maintain, abolish it plz

    • donga100 on 29/06/2025 - 22:04

      You'll see a lot of businesses no longer accepting eftpos or making it harder (min spend, etc.) too.

  • Fredfloresjr on 29/06/2025 - 21:15

    Make tax same / equal for all. Yes ALL.

  • AngoraFish on 29/06/2025 - 21:17
    -2

    I support higher taxes across the board.

    This constant magic pudding thinking that we can have great services and great healthcare and high levels of defense spending and decent public housing and better roads and more police and better education and all the rest of it is a social disease.

    Until people start advocating for higher taxes all we're left is playing people's tax lurks off against each other and inviting inane "winners and losers" tables every time the government makes a budget announcement.

    There's a reason why Scandinavian countries have the highest community welling and satisfaction metrics across almost any category you care to name.

    • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 21:29
      -5

      European countries are only happy, cause America wipes their ass. Lazy bums haven't done anything since WW2, and even then, the painter would have won without america.

      And now they can't even reproduce, so they take random refugees, who cause crime and hate them.

      Australia shouldn't be looking up to these degenerates. Look up to Korea, Singapore and China. Lower tax rates, increase business and finally start a skilled industry. Imagine having our own TSMC, Samsung or Sony.

      (profanity) happiness, we need money.

      • mskeggs on 29/06/2025 - 21:36
        +8

        Incredible stuff.
        Money over happiness?
        What happened to you in life where you would choose money over happiness?

        That is genuine - I can't imagine ever choosing money over happiness.
        Do you ever pick happiness, or always money?

        • John Barosa on 29/06/2025 - 22:03
          -5

          Ur probably old like my Dad. U probably own a few million dollar properties. U don't understand.

          I don't think you understand my position. I'm (profanity). Even if I get a nice cushy job, I'm gonna be stuck with my parents, until I can get my massive downpayment, and buy a shitty home, in a dump 50km away from Melbourne/Sydney CBD.

          Only way out, is to leave this country, and somehow get an American job.

          I need money to be happy. Gay/transexual/furry rights doesn't make me happy. And neither does the other dumb stuff the government does, instead of creating new jobs/REAL cities.

          • mskeggs on 30/06/2025 - 10:27
            +4

            @John Barosa: You can’t wait around hoping for the government to fix your problems. They aren’t going to give you a job or a house.
            There is a huge disconnect if you think stopping discrimination against gay people is the thing preventing you from getting a job or a house.
            Maybe you should get a job in America or Singapore - it isn’t that hard.
            But thinking that the government is going to bring you the money you need is wishful thinking. You need to stop blaming others and focus on what you can control.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/06/2025 - 11:27
            +4

            @John Barosa:

            Only way out, is to leave this country, and somehow get an American job.

            This sounds like a great solution for you. Best wishes.

        • Protractor on 29/06/2025 - 23:22
          +1

          You'll be sorry you engaged . See if you recognise the ghost.

          • John Barosa on 30/06/2025 - 01:25
            -1

            @Protractor: Final stage of the LGBTQ folks! They try to shut us down, and claim we aren't real.

            We are real, we do exist, that's why Trump won, and that's why American politics will come here.

        • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 05:45
          -3

          @mskeggs The general population has wanted, supported and chosen money over happiness though. That’s exactly what feminism has done, empowered the majority of women to prioritise career and money over having a family or having more time to spend with family and friends.

          A result of this is the shift in society that’s happened over the last 15-25 years from a single income economy to a dual income economy for house affordability, and we are never going to go back to a single income per household economy.

          • mskeggs on 30/06/2025 - 10:49
            +4

            @HuzzahIndeed: I think you are conflating one element of the past - women not in the workforce - with happiness.
            While I agree with you the change since 1980 of two income households has largely seen the extra income spent on house price appreciation, the idea that women are happier not working doesn’t seem to align with my experience.
            If they have children, there is a period of a few years when children are young when I think it is fantastic to have a parent looking after them full time, and it isn’t unreasonable for that parent to also carry some extra load of the chores.
            When kids are older, there aren’t too many people who want to limit themselves that way. Even in the old days, when married women were effectively barred from the workforce, they routinely had lots going on besides housework, participating in community activities, and as household chores became less demanding and we became richer as a society, leisure activities like sports and arts.

            It isn’t surprising to me that given the chance to work, many took it, to gain overseas holidays, VCR players, a second TV, a second car, restaurant meals etc.
            Plus a nicer house.

            I know a few families who live on a single income, and it usually means skipping most of those things. If a single income household is really the thing that would make you most happy, it is possible still, but you need to make trade offs.

            • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 11:58

              @mskeggs: Your personal anecdotal experience doesn’t matter. The statistical data supports that modern working women are unhappy. In fact there was a debate about it 9 hours ago that I watched this morning just after posting (skip to 25:25 as what I said in my earlier post this morning was also said in the debate around this spot):

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UyzbSeVBxvk&pp=ygUdMSBjb25zZXJ…

              There is an epidemic of single lonely men going on, which is having a direct negative impact on the amount of women that are single as well. Men are opting out because they feel there is nothing in marriage for them with how today’s standards are. It’s currently projected by 2030 that 45% of women between the ages of 25 and 44 will be single. Yes some people can still afford to be a single income household, but the majority can’t. And feminism has played a part in our society changing from a single income economy to a dual income economy, particularly over the last 15-30 years for house affordability.

              Society has elevated women and men are being left behind, which is contributing to the catastrophic consequences of declining birth rates. Women are wanting to have kids later in life to pursue a career. Women are outnumbering men by 2-1 in the United States in colleges, and more woman are getting better jobs and have started now out earning men. Dating app data is showing what women are wanting and how they’re choosing men, based on the data many women are hypergamous and date on their financial level and up (they’re also choosing men based on height, setting their height filters to 6 feet and above), so because men have started to become less educated than women and earn less than women many women are ignoring a large pool of men in the dating market and women are having trouble finding a man they want in the small pool they are picking from. There is also a lot of confusion on what men’s and women’s roles now are in relationships now that men are no longer the breed winners, woman are taking on the traditional masculine role, and woman are wanting men to be both the masculine and the feminine but many men don’t know how to be both.

              Recent data backs up that a significant number of women are wanting to work less. On TikTok and other sources a lot women regularly complain about not wanting to work, and wanting to find a partner that earns enough so they don’t have to, some even say they regret buying into feminism. Data also shows that children have better outcomes when raised by the 2 parents, and by not putting them in daycare. When it was a single income economy daycare wasn’t needed, one parent could stay home and look after the kids. Yes some people can still afford to be a single income household, but the majority can’t. Feminism has played a significant part in the shift to a 2 income economy. Governments wanted women to work because it meant being able to double tax households, and wealth control needed to be a part of that, it would have meant a 2 person household now would have double the disposable income if the shift from a single income household economy to a dual income household economy for house price affordability hadn’t happened.

              All of this and more are the reasons for many women being unhappy in 2025 which data supports.

              • Crow K on 30/06/2025 - 12:59
                +2

                @HuzzahIndeed: This feels like a bit of a confused mess, half the time it's the single men are unhappy because they're being left behind because women are getting all the jobs and going to colleges, and then the other half the time it's the women who are unhappy because they're getting all the jobs and going to all the colleges?

                Is it really as simple as "only men are happy at colleges and jobs" and "women are happier when they don't have college and jobs"?

                This sounds like someone who never lived in the 50's pining for the good old days of the nuclear family that they have no experience of whatsoever

                • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 13:27
                  -2

                  @Crow K: That’s the point. Both men and women are struggling and are unhappy with current male and female relationship dynamics. Some great things have come out of feminism, but not all things have been good. We have gone too far in the direction of feminism and uplifting women, that it’s now out of balance. Men and woman together need to discuss the issues and listen to one another in hope that it can be pulled back into the middle if we truly want to improve our society.

                  Here’s a 2 and half hour discussion on The Diary of A CEO podcast from 3 months ago about men’s issues where men a struggling in society at the moment:

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=li70iz1NaDY

                  And here’s a 2 and a half hour conversion on The Diary of A CEO podcast from a few weeks ago discussing women’s issues and where they are struggling in society at the moment:

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHuZ_8VYCWA

                  It’s not just that woman are getting all of the jobs, it’s plenty of other issues as well. Another example listen to the following debate if you want to understand even further, Tomi Lahren can’t answer the simple question of “if men’s duties are A, B, C, and D towards women then what are women’s duties towards men?”:

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=joTCXKSR81o

                  • Crow K on 30/06/2025 - 13:55

                    @HuzzahIndeed: I dunno man, you're telling mskeggs her takes are anecdotal evidence and then you're telling me to go listen to some dude's 2.5 hour podcast to find out more?

                    What if mskeggs recorded a three hour YouTube video of her points, would that make her again the more reliable source?

                    In reality there isn't a settled science on how society "should" be, there's just arguments for one way or another.

              • mskeggs on 30/06/2025 - 13:59
                +3

                @HuzzahIndeed: I think you won’t get far if you assume people don’t have agency. If you think feminism ‘tricked’ people or similar.
                I understand you don’t feel my anecdotal, lived experience of the change in our society holds as much credence as research, but understand too that the things the TikTok and YouTube algorithm are showing you is even less likely to align with real world experience.

                If there is a cohort of lonely men, and another cohort of women pining for days when they didn’t get to choose to work or not, perhaps they can find solace together.
                That this happens rarely tells me there is more to it.

                As I said, I agree most of the income gains from a second pay packet were pissed up against the wall of housing affordability - but that long term change didn’t mean the increased disposable income wasn’t delivered.
                It was, and I can confirm that it greatly improved lifestyles of two income households in the 80s and 90s.

                The policies driving house price appreciation in this country have a bunch of causes, two incomes have contributed, but so has excess population growth, increased land and building costs and investment incentives to tax real estate lightly.

                • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 14:40
                  -1

                  @mskeggs: “ I think you won’t get far if you assume people don’t have agency. If you think feminism ‘tricked’ people or similar.
                  I understand you don’t feel my anecdotal, lived experience of the change in our society holds as much credence as research, but understand too that the things the TikTok and YouTube algorithm are showing you is even less likely to align with real world experience.”

                  Get far with who? I don’t expect to get very far on OzBargain because it’s not exactly where you come for meaningful discussion and debate, many here show that they don’t have the intellectual capacity for that based on what I have witnessed, particularly over the last week.

                  I didn’t assume that all people don’t have agency. So you don’t think there is anything where feminists have been sold a lie?

                  I have never had TiKTok. I’ve seen the TikTok videos because I watch a lot of content discussing men’s issues and woman’s issues and the TikTok videos have been brought up there. I mostly listen to conversations from very educated people and experts in the fields about men’s and woman’s social issues that are based on data and statistics, as well as feminist and manosphere content so that I have a better understanding of each side. I’m not fat left or far right, nor am I a feminist or red pill manosphere activist, the algorithms don’t push me to either side. That’s the difference between what I have said and what you have said, you said in your experience, whereas I’ve mentioned credible sources that discuss the facts.

                  “If there is a cohort of lonely men, and another cohort of women pining for days when they didn’t get to choose to work or not, perhaps they can find solace together.
                  That this happens rarely tells me there is more to it.”

                  The dating app algorithms is why they’re not finding and wanting one another.

                  “As I said, I agree most of the income gains from a second pay packet were pissed up against the wall of housing affordability - but that long term change didn’t mean the increased disposable income wasn’t delivered.” It was, and I can confirm that it greatly improved lifestyles of two income households in the 80s and 90s.”

                  I didn’t say that, I said double. We are talking about 2025 though not the 80s and 90s, and how far it goes now.

                  “The policies driving house price appreciation in this country have a bunch of causes, two incomes have contributed, but so has excess population growth, increased land and building costs and investment incentives to tax real estate lightly.”

                  Yes what’s driven house prices up has been for a bunch of reasons, I haven’t stated otherwise, is feminism not one of those reasons though, because that’s all I’ve stated. Are you saying feminism hasn’t played a significant role in shifting Australia and other western countries from a single income economy to a dual income economy?

                  I’ve mentioned a couple of times on here that the apartment I currently live in in Sydney cost $117000 in 1999, it was easily bought on a single income, in 2025 it’s worth over 1.3 million, and for many people it would take 2 incomes to be able to afford it in 2025.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/06/2025 - 13:06
            +3

            @HuzzahIndeed:

            s The general population has wanted, supported and chosen money over happiness though. That’s exactly what feminism has done, empowered the majority of women to prioritise career and money over having a family or having more time to spend with family and friends.

            If feminism has achieved anything it has allowed women to pursue a career rather than being a housewife reliant on a man to support women.

            If a female wants to pursue a career, why shouldn't they be paid for that work?

            Feminism hasn't caused us to choose money over happiness. It has allowed females to pursue a career. The money is a by product.

            Until 1974, women were forced to stay in unhappy marriages. However, even with no fault divorce, many women still couldn't divorce because they were financially dependent on their husbands to support them.

            It isn't 1952 anymore. Women are allowed out of the kitchen and get to pursue a career and generate their own income to permit financial independence.

            • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 13:49
              -2

              @Muppet Detector: “ If feminism has achieved anything it has allowed women to pursue a career rather than being a housewife reliant on a man to support women.”

              True. However feminism has also outsourced the upbringing of young children to strangers at daycare facilities than the parents themselves. No?

              And a consequence of the majority of women choosing to pursue a careers has played a part in the shift in society from a single income household economy to a dual income household economy for property affordability. No?

              “If a female wants to pursue a career, why shouldn't they be paid for that work?”

              I didn’t say that if a woman wants to pursue a career that they shouldn’t be paid for that work.

              “Feminism hasn't caused us to choose money over happiness. It has allowed females to pursue a career. The money is a by product.

              Yes it has. And it shows that you no nothing about current social issues and what the data supports if you’re saying this.

              “Until 1974, women were forced to stay in unhappy marriages. However, even with no fault divorce, many women still couldn't divorce because they were financially dependent on their husbands to support them.”

              Woman initiate more than 50% of divorces in the United States, filing the reason as irreconcilable differences. The greater percentage of this isn’t due to domestic abuse and violence, it’s because they no longer feel fulfilled and don’t want to put in the work and effort to make their marriage last until old age.

              “It isn't 1952 anymore. Women are allowed out of the kitchen and get to pursue a career and generate their own income to permit financial independence.”

              Of course. But this has conquests like I’ve said.

              • mskeggs on 30/06/2025 - 14:03
                +1

                @HuzzahIndeed:

                The greater percentage of this isn’t due to domestic abuse and violence, it’s because they no longer feel fulfilled and don’t want to put in the work and effort to make their marriage last until old age.

                OK. Not sure I can debate this sort of stuff. All the best.

              • Crow K on 30/06/2025 - 14:19
                +1

                @HuzzahIndeed:

                True. However feminism has also outsourced the upbringing of young children to strangers at daycare facilities than the parents themselves. No?

                The problem with this sort of argument is it's working on the basis that the prior way of doing things is established and accepted as the better way to do things. And that hasn't been established.

                "The study of medicine has outsourced the treatment of the body humors from a fervent belief in the power of God to nonreligious strangers" etc

                • HuzzahIndeed on 30/06/2025 - 15:35

                  @Crow K: Data does demonstrate that the ways we did somethings back then was better. It also shows that men and women are unhappier now than they were back then, for example addiction and suicide amongst men and women is greater in 2025. If you actually watched the videos I posted to better educate yourself on the subject you wouldn’t instantly think the way we do everything in 2025 is a better way.

                  Furthermore, you’re free to go and debate Konstantin Kisin from the Triggernometry" podcast if you think every in society is better in 2025. He discussed some reasons in the following interview why things in western society were better 30-40+ years ago, here’s one of Konstantin‘a quotes from the interview - “Over the last 30 or 40 years, we have replaced things that work with things that sound good. So many things in our society today sound good but don't actually help anyone.”:

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbV6iW26h-Q&pp=ygUXdGhlIGRpYXJ…

                  • Crow K on 30/06/2025 - 16:12
                    +1

                    @HuzzahIndeed:

                    If you actually watched the videos I posted to better educate yourself on the subject you wouldn’t instantly think the way we do everything in 2025 is a better way.

                    If you actually developed critical thinking skills instead of just watching YouTube videos you furiously agree with, you would have noticed I didn't say the way we do things in 2025 is a better way, I said whether the old or new way was better was an unresolved matter that can't be assumed as part of the argument (otherwise you're begging the question).

                    You tossing around terms like "instantly thinking everything is better" shows that you're not ready for adult discussions on it because you're still at the script and strawman level. Cut back on the podcasts, bro.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join