Nice one Trevor.

Perhaps you may want to complain about the rents forced on the retailers by the shop owners. Fix this first before seeking rent from the customers of the online trade.

Kilmouski.

The Author makes a very cogent case for quite massive reform.
For mine, that is a complete jettisoning of the current system in its entirety, and replacing all that costly convoluted complexity, with a single stand alone expenditure tax.
Set at just 4.8%, an expenditure tax, may not actually reduce the total tax burden for those already paying their fair share!
But given it would remove the need for compliance and compliance costs, it would remove those same compliance costs, off of the backs of local business, which can and does, rip a 7% hole in the business bottom line!
The other effect, would be removing all the escape loopholes enjoyed by our international competitors, who also do any business here!
Moreover, with all the other tax penalties removed, and their loss more than made up by the end of all avoidance, particularly that enjoyed as an advantage by our internationally based competition!
Meaning, there could be a boost to the average bottom line of home based business by as much as 30%; and, as much as 25% to household disposals!
This is what closing the loopholes would achieve, as well as effectively ending all avoidance!
Rhrosty.

Various articles written over the years indicate that the effort taken to enforce compliance and collect the $1bn p.a. would be in the region of $2.5bn p.a. This would be the most expensive tariff in history.

This would also only have a minimal effect, as many of the items are cheaper by more than 50% due to cheap mailing etc from China. I can buy an iPod cable from Hong Kong for $1 incl shipping whereas it costs $15 in the store excl shipping.

An unavoidable expenditure tax, collected by the banks/finance houses on behalf of the govt, in a fee free, paradigm, in return for a continuing banking license, would not cost the public or the govt a single red cent, let alone 2.5 billion.
People, who shop online can and do avoid some tax. But, 1Bn is not a lot of money when measured against the total budget! A 4.8% surcharge on withdrawals, (expenditure tax) is not a lot of money, particularly if other taxes, like fuel tax, the GST, PAYG and PAYE are removed.
Simplification gives the business owner operator, more time and money to work on the business rather than in it!
I don't see the ordinary citizen being very upset, with a 4.8% surcharge on their withdrawals, if their take home pay/household disposals, is effectively increased by an average 25%!
That in turn would mean a non contributory, super of 15% would become suddenly affordable!
As well as an on average increase of 10% in household discretionary spending or savings or both.
Yet in spite of all the cited advantages and the economic stimulus, some people are implacably opposed to any such simplification or reform!
Arguably, those with a vested interest, avoid tax or, who earn income from the current complexity!?
Banks already own main frames, already programmed to deduct this or that fee, it wouldn't be much of a task to reprogram these computers, to deduct this only form of tax and forward it electronically to treasury at no additional cost to the banks.
The money would be instantly available to consolidated revenue, which would be almost as good as adding a once only 4-500 billion dollar injection to the federal budget.
Currently tax receipts is held for up to a year, awaiting reconciliation, before the funds become available to consolidated revenue!
This feature can also mean, the govt needs to borrow against budget expectations, just to fund recurrent spending requirements or responsibilities.
And given we are moving toward a cashless economy, this single, stand alone, unavoidable taxing model, would also wipe out the black economy.
Rhrosty.

I agree with Shadow Minister, but consider that he has not highlighted the essential joke about the whole issue.

The joke is that the revenue from the GST goes to the States, but the cost of collecting it is borne by the Commonwealth. If you think that the Federal government is going to agree to that, you must also believe in flying pigs.

The real solution to this problem is to make the Australian retail world competitive. This means cutting rents, penalty rates, and anything else that makes us one of the most expensive retail areas on earth.

lets start with some simple facts why do people buy online? i have never bought a product online to avoid gst, it is usually because no local retailer stocks the goods i want, cds, music books etc, others buy online because the product is cheaper not by the gst differential but considerably cheaper, often the wholesale price for the good is inflated, retailers should focus on lobbying for free trade agreements to eliminate wholesale price discrimination, lobby for a level playing field not slugging your potential customers a envy levy