Why it's time to increase GST

Housing and generational wars? And tax Now, first, I'm not sure we're going to like what I've got to say. By all means screen blue murder in the email. But I think it's time to increase the GST, the once evil Goods and Services Tax. Put it up. I think it should go from ten percent to fifteen percent, but only if there is a serious tax change along the way with it. The GST is twenty five years old in July July one next week, and it needs dusting off,

rethinking increasing. It's tired, its benefit is waning. Now. Option would be to extend it to areas that are exempt, like food, but I don't like that idea. Food is expensive enough and it's not optional. You've got to eat. Extending the current tax would of course put the price up of most things if you increased it. But here's the caveat to that, and it comes down to trusting government. If the GST is increased in the areas that already exist,

governments must must make significant adjustments to tax in other areas. Now, this isn't a plan to increase taxation, it's a plan to collect it Differently. Twenty five years ago, when the GST came in, the wholesale sales tax was dumped, and the states fiddled around the edges. They cut a few, not enough. The figures are pretty telling. The GST brings in about ninety billion dollars a year at the moment. Income tax that's you and me three hundred and thirty

five billion, corporate tax one hundred and thirty three binion. Now those income and corporate taxes both keep increasing and both reduce aspiration and productivity. Why work more if the taxman is going to get most of the overtime. The GST you pay only when you buy, and it's not on the necessities of life. They're not all luxuries, but it's

not on necessities. Tax is absurd A friend recently bought a new car, admittedly was expensive about ninety thousand dollars, but he paid just on eighteen thousand in taxes, partly to protect an industry that no longer exists. Eighteen thousand dollars nonsense. If the GST increases to fifteen percent, presumably it'll then bring in around what would it be, about one hundred and forty one hundred and forty five billion,

so and going up as people bought more. So what the government would need to do is this, cut income tax, raise the thresholds. That's what happened when it was introduced to it again, cut corporate tax, dump absurdities like the luxury car tax. And this one's the key. Require the states to dump or slash stamp duty on property and also land tax. That's pretty difficult. Mixed the extra GS money a GST money wouldn't cover all loose, but it

could be a start. At least index tax rates, get rid of brack of creep, at least reduce significantly stamp duty on property. Stamp duty brings in about twenty billion dollars combined in New South Wales and Victoria. So they're never going to give all that up, but stamp duty cripples real estate. It's a disincentive to move, and which would actually free up housing stock if more people moved. Its combined effect is to force up the price of houses, and that prices generations X, Y, and Z out of

the market. Houses are described as being impossibly unaffordable. I would say they are atrociously unaffordable. Younger generations are paying the price for that. Increasing the GST seriously, reforming the tax system, not just fiddling with it, is a starting point. And how good would it be to require all those big corporations who pay no tax to pay their fair share. That's one of the obsentities in the system. However, I repeat, the GST is the starting point. We're at ten percent.

At the moment. New Zealand is fifteen percent. The European average is twenty two percent. We should increase it ourselves to fifteen percent, but only with a cast iron guarantee written into legislation, a strong, unbreakable, sensible guarantee. The GST goes up, other tax goes down. This isn't a plan to bring the government back to surplus. They can begin that with some sensible financial management by ending the waste.

This isn't a plan for surpose. It's a plan for efficiency, for productivity, for fairness, for decency, and I believe a better deal for the average person. Now this is related a little generational wars of STUF in Australia, and they're already getting nasty. More than that, the government, federal governments picked sides and many believe it is now going after the boomers a tax attack. People I've spoken to in the finance industry believe that's begun and will build into

a full on attack. Now I doubt that. I don't know that, but the political decisions have been made. Boomers no longer have the majority influence at the polling booth, so instead the government looks to seduce the millennials, that's Generations X, Y and Z and get their vote. It's sensible politics. And the Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers is already talking about what's got to be done to address what

he calls intergenerational justice. Inter generational justice. So sadly, at the same time as developing online and in the community, a deep resentment of the boomer generation. And remember the youngest boomers are sixty this year. Too often boomers are seen as greedy, as privileged, having built their wealth through being crooks and gaming the system. That's clearly nonsense. Of course,

there are boomer crooks. There are in all generations, but most have built their wealth at whatever level by hard work, and it's got to be said, good luck. That means any comparison by generations X, Y, and Z are not pretty. As I mentioned earlier, housing is a key issue in this. Housing is impossibly unaffordable. Sydney's got the highest ratio of annual earnings to house prices in the world. When boomers bought their first house, it was probably the equivalent of

two or three, maybe even four years salary. Interest rates were higher, but borrowings are smaller. It's now up to twelve times annual earnings to buy a house the value of a house. That makes it impossible for a lot of people. Now, as I said a moment ago, the

government could deal with this. They could dump stamp duty, they could encourage decentralization, they could drop the land tax and every other impediment to housing as part of my GST argument, but there's more, and this one is contentious. They could cut immigration austraight As population has grown by forty percent since the year two thousand, our housing stock

has gone backwards and become impossibly unaffordable, ridiculously expensive. Governments have got the levers to pull, but they won't do it. On my podcast this week, Neil Mitchell asks why which has posted every Tuesday. I spoke to two experts in housing. They agree the government could make houses more affordable, but lack the will. Head of research at Domain, doctor Nicola Powell, was one of them. Scott O'Neill, a property investment expert, was the other. Both had ideas on how to get

prices down. Both the greed immigration was a problem and well look at it. Austraight as population increase forty percent, as I said since two thousand, it has to be a problem. Here's what these sir doctor Powell and Scott O'Neill said about immigration and housing prices. But are you suggesting we should link immigration or popular growth to housing supply and there's no houses available therefore no immigration this year.

they might want to downsize or move. They sell their house for a lot more than they pay, but they're paying a lot more for the new place, plus a whack of stamp duty. For many people, houses are more just paper profits, not real profits, not dollars in the bank. Still, there's a shortage houses, a run affordable. Boomers are being blamed. Some commentators now describe it as a national emergency. There

are leavers to pull. That involves tax reform, It involves cutting immigration, which will mean statistically we could head into recession. But the urban azy government has shown no real sign of being strong enough to do any of these things. But they're probably there for six years. We've got to live in hope they can see sense and growsome courage. Meanwhile, perhaps a little respect to boomers. Yes they've made mistakes.

Yes they are passing on a fairly disturbed old planet, but they've done a lot of good along the way, and they've advanced humanity in many areas. The least they deserve is respect. Okay, intergenerational justice, as I mentioned Jim Chalmers, cause of that, what is it and the reality of that wealth transfer. It's estimated they are about seven trillion dollars to be trained tand half the private wealth in Australia, which is why I reckon the government will look at

a suite of inheritance taxes. Look out for the inheritance taxes. They'll be hidden, That's what they'll be, and will be done in the name of intergenerational justice. The government's got a chance to act on this, by the way, and they've had it before, but they haven't acted on their newfound concern for intergenerational justice. There was before the Parliament a thing called the Future Generation's Bill earlier this year

moved by the independent MP doctor Sophie Scamps. In the UK, they say housing, employment, superannuation all loser issues for intergenerational justice. Sophie Scamps had an idea to monitor that and plan around it. She wanted a commissioner for Future generations. She wanted regular reports on it. She wanted legislation to be analyzed for its effects on future generations. All quite sensible stuff.

What happened. The bill lapsed before the election. It lacks Nobody seemed interested enough to even raise it during the campaign, and it's only only now the Jim Charmers even talking about it. By the way, as I said, he's not talking about government efficiency. He's looking to raise more tax funds. He's not throwing it back at you. There's a small cut coming, but very very little. I wouldn't mind if they raise the tax take, provided they spent it better.

But no government of any color has ever shown any ability for doing that. They are inefficient, sloppy and wasteful. They always have been. Now, like the rest of the world, I've been watching anxiously what's happening in the Middle East. For one reason, I got friends trapped in the year in the war zone. But more. I worry what is developing could erupt and involve the world. I don't think Donald Trump's unpredictable. His public statements give no real indication

of where he's headed. He's been throwing around obsentities in public, which is very pecure. Doesn't worry him as very peculiar. This is Donald Trump leaving the White House after he's peace deal. He's ceased, far shattered and be worn. As I said, there's an obscenity. We haven't cut it out because I think it's important that you hear. The prison of the United States wasn't mucking around. This is what Donald Trump said.

I'm not happy with Iron either, But I'm really unhappy if Israel's going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn't land. I'm not happy about that. We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

goes on. I think I fear that this war is going to ebb and flow for a long time and will continue with this capacity to erupt. But I'm also puzzled about this talk of a rules based order. Hearing more and more about that now, the rules based order that is something that surprisedly supposedly provides a stable and sensible world under those rules. Many eminent lawyers are arguing

America acted illegally in bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. That may be right, although it is entitled to respond to aggression, and it's claimed Iran directly threatened the US that they would activate sleeper cells of terrorists. States that I'm told by lawyers is not sufficient justification. But Andrew Hasty, the Opposition to events spokesman, former elite soldier, Unlike most of us,

he's actually been there when the bullets are flying. He says, anybody talking of a rules based order is being nostalgic. It's out of date. He says, it's gone sad though it is. He says, for years countries like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea have challenged that rules based order. He says, Iran is a dangerous terrorist state and it shouldn't be trusted and allowed nuclear weapons. That's the bottom line. Iran is part of this terror conglomerate which it supports and funds.

It's part of a philosophy that says blatantly every jew on the planet must die. It's already been issuing veiled nuclear threats on social media. I find it puzzling to talk about following a rules based order when we're faced by this type of evil. It'd be lovely, be really great if everybody followed the rules and behaved decently. Some countries have not and do not. For Iran to have

his nuclear weapons would be terrifying. And if they don't want them, really, why have they stockpiled large amounts of weapons enriched uranium. It's just sure to being rich enough to make a bomb, but at a point where there's no civilian purpose. So why they're doing it? I suspect Andrew Hasty is right. The rules based order is long gone. I hope not. We don't know the real implications for that, but I think he's right. Okay, let's change pace. I'd

like to collect stories from your schooling. Niel dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot you drop me a line, Kneel dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot you. Good teachers, bad teachers, punishment, discipline, good memories, not good memories, kneeled dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot you. I lot you from teachers too. I don't know how you do the job. The reason I want who was this? I reckon? We're lucky this country is not packed full of dysfunctional

and dangerous kids. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has advised teachers to stop using the terms in the class boys and girls, so they can't stand in front of the class and say good morning girls and boys, which used to happen to us every day. Apparently that is too gender specific. Maybe there are trans kids and the prep grode. I just can't see the logic behind what

they want. They want to avoid gender specific terms and suggesting said, this is what they want the teacher to call the kids, Not girls and boys, but good morning awesome humans. Really good morning awesome humans, or good morning superstars, good morning change makers, good morning future leaders, good morning epic humans. What a load of garbage? Look? Times have changed. I remember when I was a school the teacher who belted kids across the backside with a t square and

it hurt. I remember the strap being brought. I remember being belted with it myself. They think it at a minimum six that hurt. I remember the teacher who found new ways of torture. They'd make you if you'd the wrong thing, like something evil, like talking when you shouldn't. They make you lift your arms above your head and wiggle your hands until he lets you stop. Just try it, go and try it. That the pain is debilitating, you

want to stop. I remember teachers who couldn't speak English, a particular gentleman other Yugoslavian shocking English trying to teach us French. I remember good things. I enjoyed school, made some great friends, friends for life. I did well. I played around a bit and was disciplined. I worked hard eventually and found out how to pass exams. I didn't learn much, but I passed exams. Point is, of course there is no more corporal punishment. That's a good thing.

Of course, kids and teachers should treat each other with equal respect. But I think those in New South Wales tempted to follow instructions like calling the kids awesome humans. Well, if you be better off concentrating on how to teach properly and turning out kids who can read and count and speak rather than pointless it all exercises in virtue, signaling and social engineering. Neil dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot a U. That's it for the day. Remember

this week's other podcast is available now. Neil Mitchell asks why it's a dick dive into the housing market. It's been described as a national emergency. It's been described that houses are impossibly unaffordable. I love that term, and it's leading into generational wars. The expert panel goes through the reasons and the answers, like tax, immigration, poor planning, that's just some of it. Government could fix it, but it won't, so good luck if you Generation X, Y, or Z.

Next week, Inside the mind of Ian Baker Finch. He was one of the top golfers in the world, suddenly lost confidence, never recovered with an extraordinary public humiliation. How, why, and what happens next with Ian Baker Finch and what lessons do we take out of it? Neil Mitchell asks why available in all the usual places,