Increasing the GST
It’s a bit rich for Peter Costello to scare-monger about the risk that Labor would increase the rate of the GST — he’s doing it at the moment!
Textbooks currently attract an 8% subsidy, because the Government was forced to admit that putting a GST on learning was not the best idea.
Unfortunately, the Government has decided that the scheme is no longer worthwhile. The upshot? An 8.7% increase in the price of textbooks because of the GST.
So while Peter Costello rants about a hypothetical future increase in the scope of the GST, journalists should be asking him what he’s going to do about a real, immediate tax rise.
The govt was not forced to admit taxing text books was not a good idea. it wanted a GST , with as few exemptions as possible including food. Itwas forced to compromise on this by Labor and the Dems. That’s why State govts now reap so much out of housing stamp duty, when the average person will buy 3 properties over their lifetime. Can you tell me Robert why text books for learning should be exempt and not computers, cds, dvds and broadband fees? Have you seen a hardcopy Encyclopaedia Britannica these days? Perhaps you would like to define a text book for the benefit of the tax commissioner Robert?
The definition is simple: it’s any book that is placed on the reading list as a required or recommended reading by the coordinator of an approved course of study.
Seriously, Robert? Bring on the loopholes, bureaucratic quagmires and legalised rorts.
I’m with Norm - look at what accoutnants and their kids have been doing for years, ripping off the tax system by claiming books and course fees as necessary to their continued employment. Now that’s what I call a rort.
No tax on books full stop. Bah.
Norman, the scheme exists and runs efficiently now. If the government disagrees, it should provide evidence — and it should admit that this is a tax increase.
Well done Robert. Now would you like to define an ‘approved’ course of study. Yes, yes, I know! It is a course for which GST tax exempt, text books are used.
You’ve missed the thrust of Robert’s position, observa — it’s policy from the heart, NOT the head. That’s the most satisfying way of approaching complex issues.
One of the reasons why Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of California is because the Republican recall campaign falsely accused Gray Davis of “raising the car tax” (road tax) — when what he actually did was reverse a temporary emergency suspension of the tax. The tax cut was never intended to be permanent.
So, by all means, keep on accusing Robert of mischaracterizing the elimination of the GST exemption on textbooks as a tax rise — but don’t pretend your side isn’t capable of exactly the same.
I was a member of Robert’s “side” long before he was, vaara; but if that’s the best “defence” you can come up with for him, I’m afraid “your” side [whichever it is] should possibly think carefully before trying to “help” someone?
Forget the GST on books. The $400 up front to get into a Victorian university (or at least the larger ones) is a far greater disincentive than the GST on books. And unlike the GST, it goes mostly to student unions.
8.7% more on books?
Does that mean the government will support the ACTU’s Living Wage case or increase welfare benefits so that students can afford to buy them?
Observa, the definition of “approved course” is the same one used to decide whether someone is entitled to receive Youth Allowance (formerly Austudy). It’s been done for years and is not particularly complicated.
Especially, Robert, for all those who don’t have to deal with it, or try to plug the abuses?
Sorry, Norman, but unless you can provide even a single example of confusion over what constitutes an approved course, your argument doesn’t hold up.
The problem, Robert, is NOT in “defining” an approved course. That’s the simple part. Talk to anyone among your friends or colleagues who understands tax law, and how it could be manipulated at great expense to all.
Unless things have changed since I was at Uni, textbooks are generally nothing more than a grossly overpriced additional income stream for academics. The government’s take is trivial compared to the cash flow this conflict of interest delivers to many of the writers. Complete with trivial changes each year to ensure that the cash cow continues to provide milk.
$400 in SU fees? Holy crap!
(We’ve only got to pay a hundred and something dollars,)