Subject:
|
Re: Customs Explanation ( WAS: Bugs Lego S@H has arrived!!! good news and bad news :) :( )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:15:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
661 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, David Drew writes:
> If instead you had your Lego sent to you from overseas, and DIDN'T have to
> pay the GST on the Lego incoming Lego, then you could effectively rip the
> government off on their income. You'd probably get caught in an audit, but
> maybe not, if you sold your GST-free merchandise by cash, or had some other
> creative book-keeping. Charging the GST on all imports is the only way to
> guarantee that this doesn't occur.
But doesn't it seem unfair when neither the Goods nor the Service are
actually bought in Australia? It would seem fairer to explicitly call it a
private transaction import tariff (although I don't know how that would go
down with the WTO).
> Either way, the consumer (that's you, with the Lego in your hands) always
> pays 10% on all goods. This is right and proper, as people who buy more
> things (cue Kerry Packer's cellar list) end up paying more tax.
Unless of course your family trust in the Bahamas buys the wine. Also, Kerry
can only eat as much as a hundred other Australians, but he earns ten
thousand times their salary.
> Sure the govt. uses the GST to Get More Money, but they do this so they can
> Spend More Money. The govt. isn't a bank, trying to make a profit, they're
> trying to improve the country as a whole. When the govt can Spend More
> Money, they can do so on things we like such as police, hospitals, etc. etc.
Doesn't this encourage Government to spend money, when we all know that
things are more efficiently run by private enterprise and the free market?
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
