15-08-2023, 09:23 AM
Of course there will be some trivial problems of definitions, but the concept has been intensively traversed and well circulated in other countries, especially Australia, and also, long ago, the EU. There are always anomalies and ambiguities, but these do not really affect the purpose of the tax exemption. Definition arguments are just a distraction.
Henry Cooke has expressed another aspect in his newsletter this morning. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to paste it here, but in essence he remarks that the public likes GST exemptions because of the perceived social control; encouraging poor people to eat more fruit and veges. On the other hand simple cash increases to the poor (which are more effective) invoke the false idea that poor people waste money on pokies and smokes.
like the idea of controlling what poor people spend “taxpayer money” on. The idea that most benefit payments are immediately spent on cigarettes and pokies is very widespread, even if in reality benefits are largely spent on housing and food, the same things everyone else spends their money on.
cash payments rarely win Labour much political clout or column inches, especially if they are targeted through Working For Families, as this weekend’s boost was. That’s because they are usually incredibly complex and only apply to some people. The cash payments which do get attention are generally the universalized or semi-universalised ones: The Wage Subsidy, superannuation, Best Start.
Another problem is that a lot of people like the idea of controlling what poor people spend “taxpayer money” on. The idea that most benefit payments are immediately spent on cigarettes and pokies is very widespread, even if in reality benefits are largely spent on housing and food, the same things everyone else spends their money on.
Henry Cooke has expressed another aspect in his newsletter this morning. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to paste it here, but in essence he remarks that the public likes GST exemptions because of the perceived social control; encouraging poor people to eat more fruit and veges. On the other hand simple cash increases to the poor (which are more effective) invoke the false idea that poor people waste money on pokies and smokes.
like the idea of controlling what poor people spend “taxpayer money” on. The idea that most benefit payments are immediately spent on cigarettes and pokies is very widespread, even if in reality benefits are largely spent on housing and food, the same things everyone else spends their money on.
cash payments rarely win Labour much political clout or column inches, especially if they are targeted through Working For Families, as this weekend’s boost was. That’s because they are usually incredibly complex and only apply to some people. The cash payments which do get attention are generally the universalized or semi-universalised ones: The Wage Subsidy, superannuation, Best Start.
Another problem is that a lot of people like the idea of controlling what poor people spend “taxpayer money” on. The idea that most benefit payments are immediately spent on cigarettes and pokies is very widespread, even if in reality benefits are largely spent on housing and food, the same things everyone else spends their money on.