Isn`t it marvellous that today the first day of a new year the National Australia Bank`s "big gun" Oster states that an increase in the GST rate may have to be implemented to "dampen down the economy"!

Hey Pal!.....why don`t you and all of your moneylending mates help the economy by making it a little harder for people to keep on borrowing way out of their reach, in a lot of cases resulting in economic crisis for said borrowers!.....then again I suppose you bloodsuckers all do very well out of other peoples misery!

Take note Mr Rudd, as you are no doubt contemplating an increase in this dreaded form of direct and unavoidable (for some) taxation, that the only ones who will really suffer with an increase in GST will be the people who are already battling to make ends meet!....(see RSPCA report re pets etc in ACT which forms part of todays news report)

Isn`t it wonderful how Politicians can manipulate themselves a 6.7% pay rise and then screw the rest of the country by raising taxes to gain MORE and gain more they certainly will! I think we have the first glimmerings of "reality" starting to appear when we see a newly elected government already planning that dreaded "up the GST and up you too!".....and if anybody says that thay are not planning an increase, let us see if they will deny it right now!

GST was the tax to replace a plethora of other taxes, ( at least according to little John) .....I wonder what sort of tax they call Income Tax, Fringe Benefits Tax, Tobacco Tax, Liquor Excise Tax, Stamp Duty (on just about everything that moves and doesn`t move )....Tax, Tax, Tax!....( and we will not venture into the increases in State controlled Electricity, Petrol, Diesel, Water, Gas, Registration and Insurance Duty and Telephony Charges!)

When the GST first came,I said that the Liberals may implement it,but Labor will increase it.It is a tax that favours big business since they just pass it on,while small businesses under higher competition absorb some of the tax.Banks also do not have to charge GST on the interest they make so of course they would like to see an increase in the GST to control inflation.They produce nothing and make money on an intangible concept called money and make some of the highest profits in the business world.

Yes it is about time the RBA brought in tighter rules on Banks and credit card companies in loaning money to people whom they know, cannot afford to repay.This will lower inflation greatly.

Does the RBA has any regulatory control over finance operators? I thought its only role was to control monetary policy.

I don't think many people would question the need to dampen unsustainable borrowing, but I do have sympathy with certain posters who here who believe that increasing legislation to restrict borrowing smacks slightly of "the government knows better than you do how much you can borrow, and isn't going to let you take any risks".
My preference is to vastly increase government fees on credit cards in particular, as credit cards are virtually always used for lifestyle-debt, rather than wealth-creation debt.

I also like some of the recommendations made here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/b0222c68d27626e2ca256c8c001a3d2d/fd868e1665940767ca257125007f58d6!OpenDocument

But it would seem this sort of thing really should be done at a Federal level.

Is there any evidence at all that Rudd is thinking of this?
And can anyone doubt we do have to be concerned about personal debt and our national one?
It is true personal debt is out of control and while unfair the whole nation must carry the bag for it some will truly feel the pain more than others.
Self inflicted pain.
Parents of todays mid 30 year olds may do well to talk to them about past credit squeezes and the certainty money is never free.
I Predicted in a thread about credit squeeze long before the election who ever won would be forced to confront both forms of debt.
If we all pay for some it is unfair , but if we all pay because not action was taken now or in the past 10 years it is just as bad.

I agree with you over the way we are taxed, but we can't have it both ways and expect, and I mean expect, the government to provide all the things that tax provides........... social security & safety nets, education, armed forces with the latest gear, hospitals nurses and doctors, roads, infrastructure, border security, overseas aid, research, police and all the other public servants, environment protection and fisheries, aboriginals..... all the things we DEMAND and vote the government to provide, without taxing the population. If you want lower taxation vote for a government that doesn't supply all these services and more that I don't have time to think about. You listen to anyone and depending on their personal priority say "they" meaning the government meaning us, should provide it. Think about it next time someone suggests it.

Snake, well I for one am perfectly happy with higher taxation - that's partly why I voted for the Greens. In the last 12 years I've seen the proportion of my income taken as tax drop quite significantly, with no evidence that it has improved my quality of life, and significant evidence that public services have suffered.

Further, polls were done during the election showing that over 80% of Australians wanted more services over tax cuts. If the current promised tax cuts were canned, and just half of predicted surplus out of the next budget was directed towards improving services, I reckon we'd just about all be better off for it.

However, GST is probably the wrong tax to increase, unless it's done in tandem with a) a significant raising of the tax-free threshold and b) "negative taxation" for those who already under the threshold that literally struggle just to afford basics such as food and rent.
I'd much rather see a carbon tax.

It is interesting that in 1951 average income tax was just 11% without the plethoria of other taxes we now endure,yet we cannot build a Snowy Mts Scheme,pay for roads or all manner of infrastructure.We did not have the machinery then or the computers,yet we seem to more impotent now than ever before.

If we taxed CO2 emissions instead of grandfathering emissions rights, we could significantly reduce the GST:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

Arjay, where do you get those numbers from?

I'd like to see a budget breakdown from 1951 too. What area of spending could possibly have increased so much since then? Certainly not education (which was almost entirely publicly funded back then), and I would doubt welfare. Health, perhaps, but's certainly not enough on its own to explain such an increase.

Obviously there are reasons that infrastructure becomes more difficult to build with time (e.g. the amount of existing infrastructure that you have to build around), but as you say, we now have much more advanced equipment to build it - tunnelling must surely be much cheaper now than it was 50 years ago.

Wizofaus,I knew a teacher who kept his first group certificate of 1951 and 11% was his tax.I think that they also had death duties then,but there was little or no social security.More tax means more Govt waste.The ADF have just wasted $1.4 billion on Naval ship modifications that won't work.Remember the billion dollar choppers,and the $4 billion Collins Class Subs.How many stuff ups don't we hear about?

Arjay you won't get any argument from me that most military spending is a waste of money (and worse, just fuels the never-ending arms race). And yes, there will always be inefficiency and wastage associated with government spending - but that on its own isn't evidence that we would be better off without that spending. One only needs to look at the healthcare situation in the U.S. - their mostly private system is far more expensive than any government-run system, and far less effective, when measured on basic outcomes such as infant mortality and life expectancy.

Social security in Australia was introduced in the '40s.

Needless to say, that one teacher was only taxed 11% of his income isn't much proof on its own that taxation as a whole was significantly less in 1951.