"It is therefore inevitable that the tax base must be widened and taxes increased if the government is to continue meeting its commitments'.

Wrong!

The problem instead is: (1) When Governments were awash with revenue stemming from the mining boom they spent the windfall. (2) Labor politicians are addicted to borrowing and ran up large deficits in what were then good times, and now (in opposition) are blocking measures to reduce the deficit. (3) Governments keep increasing their "commitments". Programmes like Gonski funding increases for schools, the NDIS, government funded Paid Parental Leave, increased spending on Child Care Rebates were all introduced when it was known that the funds were not there to pay for these spends.

The GST was supposed to reduce income tax and replace other taxes like stamp duty. Any relief in other taxes was only temporary so that all we ended up with was another tax and more Government spending.

If the GST is increased to 15% this won't be the last of it. New pork-barrels will be identified and in the fullness of time we will see proposals for a 20% GST or a reintroduction of death duties. Before we know it the public sector will be spending most of what we earn!

What we need is restraint in public spending and not higher taxes.

Bren is right. Politicians are addicted to spending OUR money. When they have gone through it all - purely for re-election purposes - their only way off topping up the pot is to increase taxes and add a few more if possible. Unlike the the rest of us, who have to tighten our belts and cut our spending.

The biggest problem with the economy - as always - is politicans.

I agree completely with Bren, the last thing we need is any more hand outs. We need to reduce taxes & all government spending, particularly the ridiculous rates of remuneration to top level bureaucrats & quango members. Perhaps a top limit of twice a check out chicks award would be appropriate as the top payment.

We also have to at least stop the increase in all welfare payments, including allowances. If unemployed or pensioners can't manage in Sydney or Melbourne, they should move to somewhere where rents are cheap. I've heard Jandowae is nice this time of year.

Sorry Murray, but I am not sure why you are recommending an increase in immigration. It is the population growth that is destroying our life style, & causing huge requirements in infrastructure spending. We need more people, more tunnels/expressways like a hole in the head.

Most of us oldies can do sit down jobs way past retirement, & a large percentage would love to be still earning. What we don't need is more dole bludgers or short term people soaking up the wealth in the good times. We don't need more places like Perth, where there are more foreign accents than Ozzie ones, or like Fairfield, where it is hard to find an English speaker.

It may be good for the construction industry & bureaucrats, but it is a disaster for the general population.

Self contradictory article displaying economic illiteracy! First whinges about the cost of living, then supports a GST rise which would make that cost much higher!

It has been grossly irresponsible of the Abbott and Gillard governments to pursue a short term budgetary surplus. Australia has unlimited credit; we don't actually need to balance our budget. Surpluses are often desirable to keep interest rates low without an inflation breakout, but short term interest rates are low enough already; it's long term interest rates that could be a potential problem.

Right now we need economic stimulus. At the moment, more government spending would result in more people employed and thus tax revenue (and conversely, cuts would result in less tax revenue so wouldn't make us any better off). The government should spend more now and ease off when the private sector is strong enough to employ more people.

We should focus on things that will boost our future productivity. This does include things like Gonski and NDIS, as well as new railways and roads, a proper NBN and electricity infrastructure.

Aidian,
you have got it all wrong,
every dollar raised in revenue is paid back to the community at 60 cents (ATO) meaning it is very ineffective at boosting the economy.

Or the government needs to raise $160 million in tax revenue to stimulate the economy by $100 million

That is the ATO is so incompetent at collecting revenue it only has 60% to give government to pay for services (hospitals, roads etc)

Whereas lowering tax it the most efficient way to boost demand. Lower income tax (say an extra $10 a week) means $10 a week extra spent in retailing, food, entertainment or many other private enterprises, who because they are busier, will employ more people.

The effect is $1= $1.

I run a small business and we need to employ another person, yet I am paying over $50000 a year in indirect taxes (fees, levies, council rates, payroll tax, licence fees, registration, company levies) So drop these taxes and many thousands of businesses would employ more people.

You wouldn't be Greek by any chance would you Aidan?