Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The GST of it.

I'm sick of all this talk about the GST rise. Firstly, you're not going to pay GST on existing GST. Since every $1 you spend currently includes 11.1¢ of GST, you'll only notice a 2.235% increase in the cost of things, not 2.5%. It's a small detail, but it bugs me nonetheless.

Secondly, the new tax rates will mean that even someone on the minimum wage will be getting an extra $12.28 per week. Sure, that's not much, however they'd have to spend $549.50 in goods and services each week for that extra income to be eaten up by the GST rise. Since they only earn $510 a week before tax, I doubt that's going to happen.

Even if the tax cuts weren't happening it would barely affect you, so stop complaining about it, you're not going to suffer. Unless you're buying a new car, but then if you're doing that you hardly have money issues do you?

I like GST because it's easier for the individual to control than income tax; so have this one National, because you don't get my support too often.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

This just inbox.

As an update to Cost. Benefit., I thought I might point out that when the media reports on 'how the government is spending your money', causing major outrage at 'our taxes' being spent on 'blah, blah blah', they're neglecting to report one small detail. Individual income tax only makes up about 39% of the government's core revenue. And that's core revenue; that excludes Crown entities and state-owned enterprises. Core revenue is only ~74% of the government's revenue. That means that individual income tax accounts for ~29% of the government's revenue. You might argue that GST, which makes up 24% of the core revenue, is also 'your money'. I suppose it is, but you have control over that, unlike income tax; and really, who considers GST when they go to buy something? You see a price and decide whether to pay it. Don't even get me started on the fact that the GST rise will see you spending and extra $2.50 for every $100. You'd have to be spending more than $4000 to see the extra expense soar into triple digits.

So, back to the point at hand, for the sake of accuracy in reporting, the media should be taking any ballpark figures they happen to glance at on the internet and dividing them by three. They'll still be doing a shitty job, but at least it will show that they're doing a bit more reporting than just checking their inbox.