Skip to content Skip to main navigation

No Myer for Westfield Woden after all

Smackbang 13 September 2014 67

Way back in 2011, around the same time it announced the closure of the Tuggeranong store, Myer announced it would be opening a store at Westfield Woden by the end of 2013. According to various announcements from Myer since then, the store has been ‘delayed’ several times since. But as recently as November last year Myer was still ‘committed to a new store at Woden’, to open by the end of 2015.

Now, in its full-year results for 2013-14, released on 11 September 2014, Myer announced that, as part of ‘optimising their store network’, it has made a decision not to proceed with the store at Woden after all.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
67 Responses to No Myer for Westfield Woden after all
Filter
Order
Felix the Cat 9:46 am 02 Oct 14

[quote comment="534116"]

Why not exempt GST on all imports, irrespective of the amount? I would love to hear your take on why this cannot be done.

[/quote]

Main reason would be the billions of dollars revenue the government would lose. This shortfall would need to be made somewhere else either by increasing an existing tax(es) or creating a new tax(es).

There are varying factors why the Australian goods sell for 30-50% (sometimes more) more than the equivalent o/s product. Often there is a middleman here, a wholesaler or distributor, who buys direct from manufacturer (or sometimes another wholesaler) and adds their layer of profit before selling to the retailer. This could be overcome by retailers shoppoing around for different suppliers (either local or o/s) but sometimes small retailers don't have the resources (staff and facilities) to do this and might be required to bulk buy a year's worth of stock to get a decent price.

Then there are retailers who have shops in malls like Westfield Woden or Belconnen. Retailers are charged very high rents and I believe also have to pay a percentage of their turnover (not profit) to Westfield.

Also there is the cost of hiring staff which can be quite cost prohibitive when you add all the on-costs like public holiday loadings, superannuation, worker's comp, sick/holiday/maternity/paternity leave. So to pay someone a wage of say $50K, the actual cost to the retailer can be over double that.

dungfungus 5:59 pm 01 Oct 14

It's obvious from comments on this thread that Australians don't really care about the survival of Australian retailers.

This includes shoppers and governments, the former group loyal to the cheapest price and the latter entity preferring to embrace the multinationals (especially Europe/Scandinavia) which is a latent "cultural cringe".

I saw on TV last night that two new German retail chains are opening in Australia following the highly successful Aldi model (another one that the ACT government cosseted to get them here).

I am wondering how all this will end. I guess most shopping will soon be done on-line and the huge Australian shopping precincts that can't compete will simply close.

Anyone got any ideas on where things are going?

Mysteryman 2:52 pm 01 Oct 14

[quote comment="534107"][quote comment="534096"][quote comment="534087"][quote comment="534074"][quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.[/quote]

When the GST was introduced by the party that is always cleaning up Labor's mess, the volume of low value imports was very small. The phenomenon called on-line retailing changed all that.

It is interesting to note that Customs have now computerised all large value import entries so all the paperwork is done before the sea container clears the port of departure. These are the shipments that are subject to GST; the same shipments that Gerry Harvey gets and on which GST is paid before the importer even received the container.

I am sure Customs can adapt their software to cater for the millions of under $1,000 purchases that are currently GST free. Australia needs this lost revenue and our retailers need a level playing field.[/quote]

Right, because we're all going to stop buying things overseas for 40-50% less because you want the government to charge us 10% GST? Australian retailers need to adapt, and if the current distribution chain is the problem, they need to start direct importing themselves and leave the distribution chain to starve.[/quote]

And there is still a cost to collecting the money. The extra storage space, extra staff to deal with all of this. It won't stop me shopping overseas. I don't shop overseas to save 10% GST. Its never ever been the reason to buy overseas. So local retailers still lose out because people won't buy locally. The money gained will barely cover the costs of collection. Also regardless of thresholds, if it was $100 and I'm buying a heap of electronic components from HK, I'll buy $99 worth. Then if i need more put another order in for $99. This is no different to big corporations dodging tax, or the wealthy use tax concessions to make more money. When the GST limit is currently set is because it also mirrors the duty free allowance.

They can squeal all they like, but plenty of evidence of it being done properly and making money in Australia and those retailers get rewarded by the Australian public.[/quote]

Exactly. If 10% savings was the only benefit to buying from overseas, then nobody would do it. The fact is the savings are often in the area of 30-50% depending on what it is you buy, plus there is the advantage of having a much larger selection to choose from. Even if GST was added to imports, I'd still be buying from overseas because it would still be cheaper.

I've tried repeatedly to buy locally because I'm impatient and would rather not have to wait for shipping. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone to a shop only to be told they don't have the product in stock, and I'd have to wait a week. If I have to wait a week, I'll just order from overseas and save the difference in price. Especially when the "service" I receive locally often leaves a lot to be desired.

Australian retailers on the whole are need a big shake up. For starters, "recommended retail price" doesn't mean "just charge this price, and no less". It's a recommendation. Four shops in the Canberra centre all selling the same watch, for the exact same price. Price it 5-10% less the RRP and generate some ACTUAL competition. If they want people to buy locally they need to give us a good reason to. Currently, very, very few of them do.

dungfungus 11:47 am 01 Oct 14

I hope Mayor Rattenbury doesn't see this and get any ideas about our council supporting Myer in Canberra.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/myer-development-deal-hobart-lord-010245823.html

Then again, they have given a lot of freebies to IKEA.

HiddenDragon 7:00 pm 19 Sep 14

It may not be getting Myers, but Woden is getting Harry Hartog (mainly books, apparently) - so we'll have to see how range and prices compare to the online alternatives.

On the broader, and now much-debated, question of GST on private imports, I hope that any changes to the current rules are clear and consistent. In the early days of the GST, I believe it was charged on anything over $500 (the $1000 figure came in later) and, in practice, it seemed to depend on whether an item came by air or sea as to whether it was caught in the net.

dungfungus 6:54 pm 19 Sep 14

[quote comment="534107"][quote comment="534096"][quote comment="534087"][quote comment="534074"][quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.[/quote]

When the GST was introduced by the party that is always cleaning up Labor's mess, the volume of low value imports was very small. The phenomenon called on-line retailing changed all that.

It is interesting to note that Customs have now computerised all large value import entries so all the paperwork is done before the sea container clears the port of departure. These are the shipments that are subject to GST; the same shipments that Gerry Harvey gets and on which GST is paid before the importer even received the container.

I am sure Customs can adapt their software to cater for the millions of under $1,000 purchases that are currently GST free. Australia needs this lost revenue and our retailers need a level playing field.[/quote]

Right, because we're all going to stop buying things overseas for 40-50% less because you want the government to charge us 10% GST? Australian retailers need to adapt, and if the current distribution chain is the problem, they need to start direct importing themselves and leave the distribution chain to starve.[/quote]

And there is still a cost to collecting the money. The extra storage space, extra staff to deal with all of this. It won't stop me shopping overseas. I don't shop overseas to save 10% GST. Its never ever been the reason to buy overseas. So local retailers still lose out because people won't buy locally. The money gained will barely cover the costs of collection. Also regardless of thresholds, if it was $100 and I'm buying a heap of electronic components from HK, I'll buy $99 worth. Then if i need more put another order in for $99. This is no different to big corporations dodging tax, or the wealthy use tax concessions to make more money. When the GST limit is currently set is because it also mirrors the duty free allowance.

They can squeal all they like, but plenty of evidence of it being done properly and making money in Australia and those retailers get rewarded by the Australian public.[/quote]

Of course there is a cost to collecting the GST where it is payable and this is where it is so unfair.

Why not exempt GST on all imports, irrespective of the amount? I would love to hear your take on why this cannot be done.

Also, you would be aware that most on-line purchases from overseas come by air-freight. Are you comfortable with the carbon footprint associated with this?

I can't see the association with GST and the duty free allowance. I think you left a word out somewhere.

Finally, the way you attack "the wealthy" leads me to believe you are one of the entitlement cult and you are going to milk the GST free under $1,000 for all it is worth.

You realize of course that while you currently use the Australian retail price as a comparison to feel good about how much money you are saving, think again what you are going to compare prices to when Australian retailers cease to exist and you are forced to buy on-line, offshore.

We will see who gets screwed then.

watto23 4:58 pm 19 Sep 14

[quote comment="534096"][quote comment="534087"][quote comment="534074"][quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.[/quote]

When the GST was introduced by the party that is always cleaning up Labor's mess, the volume of low value imports was very small. The phenomenon called on-line retailing changed all that.

It is interesting to note that Customs have now computerised all large value import entries so all the paperwork is done before the sea container clears the port of departure. These are the shipments that are subject to GST; the same shipments that Gerry Harvey gets and on which GST is paid before the importer even received the container.

I am sure Customs can adapt their software to cater for the millions of under $1,000 purchases that are currently GST free. Australia needs this lost revenue and our retailers need a level playing field.[/quote]

Right, because we're all going to stop buying things overseas for 40-50% less because you want the government to charge us 10% GST? Australian retailers need to adapt, and if the current distribution chain is the problem, they need to start direct importing themselves and leave the distribution chain to starve.[/quote]

And there is still a cost to collecting the money. The extra storage space, extra staff to deal with all of this. It won't stop me shopping overseas. I don't shop overseas to save 10% GST. Its never ever been the reason to buy overseas. So local retailers still lose out because people won't buy locally. The money gained will barely cover the costs of collection. Also regardless of thresholds, if it was $100 and I'm buying a heap of electronic components from HK, I'll buy $99 worth. Then if i need more put another order in for $99. This is no different to big corporations dodging tax, or the wealthy use tax concessions to make more money. When the GST limit is currently set is because it also mirrors the duty free allowance.

They can squeal all they like, but plenty of evidence of it being done properly and making money in Australia and those retailers get rewarded by the Australian public.

dkNigs 1:50 pm 19 Sep 14

[quote comment="534087"][quote comment="534074"][quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.[/quote]

When the GST was introduced by the party that is always cleaning up Labor's mess, the volume of low value imports was very small. The phenomenon called on-line retailing changed all that.

It is interesting to note that Customs have now computerised all large value import entries so all the paperwork is done before the sea container clears the port of departure. These are the shipments that are subject to GST; the same shipments that Gerry Harvey gets and on which GST is paid before the importer even received the container.

I am sure Customs can adapt their software to cater for the millions of under $1,000 purchases that are currently GST free. Australia needs this lost revenue and our retailers need a level playing field.[/quote]

Right, because we're all going to stop buying things overseas for 40-50% less because you want the government to charge us 10% GST? Australian retailers need to adapt, and if the current distribution chain is the problem, they need to start direct importing themselves and leave the distribution chain to starve.

dungfungus 11:34 am 19 Sep 14

[quote comment="534074"][quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.[/quote]

When the GST was introduced by the party that is always cleaning up Labor's mess, the volume of low value imports was very small. The phenomenon called on-line retailing changed all that.

It is interesting to note that Customs have now computerised all large value import entries so all the paperwork is done before the sea container clears the port of departure. These are the shipments that are subject to GST; the same shipments that Gerry Harvey gets and on which GST is paid before the importer even received the container.

I am sure Customs can adapt their software to cater for the millions of under $1,000 purchases that are currently GST free. Australia needs this lost revenue and our retailers need a level playing field.

dungfungus 11:25 am 19 Sep 14

[quote comment="534060"][quote comment="534053"][quote comment="534050"][quote comment="534045"][quote comment="534030"][quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.[/quote]

Just about every comment you've made on this tread!

But let's start with the most recent:

"That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems."

Fact or just your opinion? Please clarify

"Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free."

Again, fact or you opinion? If fact, please provide source data.

"Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it."

Once again, fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

From previous comments:

"Tell me all about the “cost of collecting”.

This was just a general statement by Labor so they didn’t upset the voters. It would actually cost the taxpayer nothing because all costs would be recovered as part of the process."

Source was mentioned in the article. What's your source of it just being a "general statement by Labor"? And where are your supporting figures that "it would actually cost taxpayers nothing"

"That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing"

Other contributors have given actual examples of exaggerated local pricing, yet you state that this is not the case. Any proof to discredit their examples?

"Actually, kids these days do not want to work at weekend and even if they did employers can’t afford to pay the penalty rates."

Once again yet another throw away comment with no actual backing or evidence.

These are the things that "bother me", "exactly".

EndofRant[/quote]

Looks like Gerry Harvey and I are on trial with the self-appointed RiotAct Star Court presiding.

I better get legal advice.

PS It's a thread, not a tread.[/quote]

Exhibit 1 for the accused:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/overseas-loophole-costs-620m-in-missing-gst-20130819-2s6lk.html

How deep do you want me to dig?[/quote]

So what part of this article did you want to bring to our attention? This quote?

"It came down to cost. The report found lowering the threshold to $20 would raise in excess of $550 million in tax revenue but the cost of processing using the present system would escalate to more than $2 billion - more than three times the additional revenue collected."

Thanks for that.

BTW, not trying to put anyone on trial here, just annoyed when people post comments or dismiss other peoples comments, without backing them up.

Oh and thanks for picking up on my typo. :)[/quote]

How about the headline?

The costs of collecting are just a red herring. Why can't they be added on to the GST that isn't being collected?

And why can't the system in place continue to be used? If the receiver of the goods completes the entry documentation and avoids using a Customs agent the costs are peanuts but the GST has to be paid.

JC 10:17 pm 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534015"]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.[/quote]

For what it is worth I actually support the GST and I reckon it was one of the best things that Honest John did whilst it was in power. I doesn't matter who did or didn't support it at the end of the day.

My core issue is your constant blame of Labor in every thread. Simple fact is the Liebrals introduced the GST, they didn't see fit to charge GST on low value inports. Seven years later Labor got in power and for their 6 years didn't change the policy either. Though I think they may have increased the threshold, though in real terms it stayed the same. Your Liebral mates have now been in power for 1 year and they too have not made any changes. Yet by your calculations and thinking it is all Labors fault.

Oh nothing wrong with my spell checker either, after Abbott got into power it changed the spelling of the part to better reflect their characters, which is a bunch of liers.

Funky1 6:31 pm 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534053"][quote comment="534050"][quote comment="534045"][quote comment="534030"][quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.[/quote]

Just about every comment you've made on this tread!

But let's start with the most recent:

"That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems."

Fact or just your opinion? Please clarify

"Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free."

Again, fact or you opinion? If fact, please provide source data.

"Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it."

Once again, fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

From previous comments:

"Tell me all about the “cost of collecting”.

This was just a general statement by Labor so they didn’t upset the voters. It would actually cost the taxpayer nothing because all costs would be recovered as part of the process."

Source was mentioned in the article. What's your source of it just being a "general statement by Labor"? And where are your supporting figures that "it would actually cost taxpayers nothing"

"That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing"

Other contributors have given actual examples of exaggerated local pricing, yet you state that this is not the case. Any proof to discredit their examples?

"Actually, kids these days do not want to work at weekend and even if they did employers can’t afford to pay the penalty rates."

Once again yet another throw away comment with no actual backing or evidence.

These are the things that "bother me", "exactly".

EndofRant[/quote]

Looks like Gerry Harvey and I are on trial with the self-appointed RiotAct Star Court presiding.

I better get legal advice.

PS It's a thread, not a tread.[/quote]

Exhibit 1 for the accused:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/overseas-loophole-costs-620m-in-missing-gst-20130819-2s6lk.html

How deep do you want me to dig?[/quote]

So what part of this article did you want to bring to our attention? This quote?

"It came down to cost. The report found lowering the threshold to $20 would raise in excess of $550 million in tax revenue but the cost of processing using the present system would escalate to more than $2 billion - more than three times the additional revenue collected."

Thanks for that.

BTW, not trying to put anyone on trial here, just annoyed when people post comments or dismiss other peoples comments, without backing them up.

Oh and thanks for picking up on my typo. :)

dungfungus 4:45 pm 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534050"][quote comment="534045"][quote comment="534030"][quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.[/quote]

Just about every comment you've made on this tread!

But let's start with the most recent:

"That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems."

Fact or just your opinion? Please clarify

"Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free."

Again, fact or you opinion? If fact, please provide source data.

"Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it."

Once again, fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

From previous comments:

"Tell me all about the “cost of collecting”.

This was just a general statement by Labor so they didn’t upset the voters. It would actually cost the taxpayer nothing because all costs would be recovered as part of the process."

Source was mentioned in the article. What's your source of it just being a "general statement by Labor"? And where are your supporting figures that "it would actually cost taxpayers nothing"

"That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing"

Other contributors have given actual examples of exaggerated local pricing, yet you state that this is not the case. Any proof to discredit their examples?

"Actually, kids these days do not want to work at weekend and even if they did employers can’t afford to pay the penalty rates."

Once again yet another throw away comment with no actual backing or evidence.

These are the things that "bother me", "exactly".

EndofRant[/quote]

Looks like Gerry Harvey and I are on trial with the self-appointed RiotAct Star Court presiding.

I better get legal advice.

PS It's a thread, not a tread.[/quote]

Exhibit 1 for the accused:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/overseas-loophole-costs-620m-in-missing-gst-20130819-2s6lk.html

How deep do you want me to dig?

dungfungus 4:11 pm 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534045"][quote comment="534030"][quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.[/quote]

Just about every comment you've made on this tread!

But let's start with the most recent:

"That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems."

Fact or just your opinion? Please clarify

"Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free."

Again, fact or you opinion? If fact, please provide source data.

"Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it."

Once again, fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

From previous comments:

"Tell me all about the “cost of collecting”.

This was just a general statement by Labor so they didn’t upset the voters. It would actually cost the taxpayer nothing because all costs would be recovered as part of the process."

Source was mentioned in the article. What's your source of it just being a "general statement by Labor"? And where are your supporting figures that "it would actually cost taxpayers nothing"

"That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing"

Other contributors have given actual examples of exaggerated local pricing, yet you state that this is not the case. Any proof to discredit their examples?

"Actually, kids these days do not want to work at weekend and even if they did employers can’t afford to pay the penalty rates."

Once again yet another throw away comment with no actual backing or evidence.

These are the things that "bother me", "exactly".

EndofRant[/quote]

Looks like Gerry Harvey and I are on trial with the self-appointed RiotAct Star Court presiding.

I better get legal advice.

PS It's a thread, not a tread.

Funky1 2:20 pm 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534030"][quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.[/quote]

Just about every comment you've made on this tread!

But let's start with the most recent:

"That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems."

Fact or just your opinion? Please clarify

"Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free."

Again, fact or you opinion? If fact, please provide source data.

"Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it."

Once again, fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

From previous comments:

"Tell me all about the “cost of collecting”.

This was just a general statement by Labor so they didn’t upset the voters. It would actually cost the taxpayer nothing because all costs would be recovered as part of the process."

Source was mentioned in the article. What's your source of it just being a "general statement by Labor"? And where are your supporting figures that "it would actually cost taxpayers nothing"

"That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing"

Other contributors have given actual examples of exaggerated local pricing, yet you state that this is not the case. Any proof to discredit their examples?

"Actually, kids these days do not want to work at weekend and even if they did employers can’t afford to pay the penalty rates."

Once again yet another throw away comment with no actual backing or evidence.

These are the things that "bother me", "exactly".

EndofRant

rosscoact 1:12 pm 18 Sep 14

It's the method of collection that would create the costs. No GST would be collected by the overseas retailer so it would have to be intercepted and collected onshore.

1. Parcel or envelope comes in, hopefully with a declaration on the outside that says how much it costs.

2. It is intercepted and held at the entry port

3. Depending on the type of declaration it may be either manually or automatically checked and recorded. A certain number will have to be checked to ensure compliance, otherwise everyone simply cheats.

4. A demand for payment is sent out to the receiver.

5. If COD, the parcel is held at the Post Office until the person comes in and pays the GST.

6. If not COD, then the demand is sent out via electronic or paper mail and the item held until the GST is paid and it gets despatched.

7. While the parcel is held the holder is responsible for it, including for any 'shrinkage'.

8. A certain percentage will result in non-collection by the addressee (especially at the smaller value end) and the abandoned parcels will need to be collected and returned to a storage facility waiting for periodic auctions.

And that's why they decided that punishing the consumer so that the Gerry Harveys don't need to compete on service and innovation is a pointless exercise.

watto23 11:46 am 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="533966"][quote comment="533948"][quote comment="533893"]I give up. Human nature is that we will always chase the cheapest deal and Australians seem even happier if they can cheat the system by not paying GST.

When we are forced to buy everything offshore because there is no local alternative maybe we can re-visit this thread. It will only take a couple more years.[/quote]

Firstly people are not cheating the system. The law is quite clear that there is not GST on imports over $1000. There are many reasons for this, the least of which is the cost return benefit.

But if you actually took the time to read any of the comments here and actually think about it, the examples that I and others have given of our overseas shopping, adding 10% GST would make not one iota of difference. The items we are buying we are being severely ripped off if we buy in Australia. Indeed many here have said if the same item only cost marginally more here then they would buy it here, but not when in my case it is half the price overseas, and others thousands cheaper despite the goods being made here.

So really your, and Gery Harveys GST issue is nothing but a diversion and blissful ignorance of the real reason people are buying overseas.[/quote]

Can you say honestly that all your GST free online purchases have cost under $1,000 because I know a lot of people who have purchased goods worth several thousand dollars who have not been billed for GST.

It's a rort on a huge scale.[/quote]

Well if that occurs that is Customs fault not the buyers. They are in charge of levying the GST often via the post office. I've paid GST every time I've bought something overseas that was over $1000.

Although with regards to camera equipment which is interesting, its mostly made in SE Asia for a Japanese/Korean based camera manufacturer. The markup is often purely selfishness or poor business practice. I have to say the importer though for Pentax/Sigma has started to offer much more competitive pricing to retailers and even set up their own webstore. At one stage they were selling a particular model of camera for the cheapest price in the world. So it can be done. That is the point, if a few retailers and importers can do it and stay in business, then the others complaining need to fix their business model.

dungfungus 10:51 am 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534017"][quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.[/quote]

I have been filling in BASs every 3 months ever since the GST was introduced. I think I know what I am talking about.

Having said that, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters but I am always open to correction.

Tell me what it is that bothers you, exactly.

Funky1 9:30 am 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534001"][quote comment="533990"]Here's an interesting article that may quash some of these incorrect comments

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/doubt_over_online_gst_push_as_local_mpfJX4WVGo5sR7fT6Snc6I

And just a few exerts of interest:

"Once lampooned for their head-in-the-sand approach to online retailing, Australian-based retailers now account for 74 per cent of the $14.9 billion Australian consumers spend online."

"NAB has previously estimated that if the GST-free threshold were lowered to $25, the tax would collect an extra $309 million in revenue. If it were set at $100, it would raise an additional $210 million – doing little to plug billion-dollar holes in federal and state government budgets.

These figures do not include the cost of collection. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that dropping the GST-free threshold to $100 would raise $500 million in GST and duty but the cost of collection would be $1.2 billion."[/quote]

That is an interesting read authored by people who have never completed a Business Activity Statement it seems.

The average transaction cost has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of GST collected; it is the total amount that the tax is calculated on. For example, one million transactions at $25 each yields the same amount of GST as half a million transactions at $50 each. It is noted that the number of GST free transactions is not stated.

Also, while it may be true that "Australian based retailers" now account for nearly 75% of online sales in Australia, the goods are mainly sourced from overseas suppliers/warehouses direct to Australian customers and as a consequence, most, if not all, are GST free.

Interesting also to note that the article doesn't state how much GST was actually collected from online sales and this would be because no one knows as no attempt is made to collect it.

As I said earlier, it is a massive rort.[/quote]

Oh please provide evidence of your claims.

Everything (and I mean everything) that you have said is purely your opinion. You have not provided any facts or evidence to support any of your claims.

dungfungus 8:22 am 18 Sep 14

[quote comment="534000"][quote comment="533987"][quote comment="533966"][quote comment="533948"][quote comment="533893"]I give up. Human nature is that we will always chase the cheapest deal and Australians seem even happier if they can cheat the system by not paying GST.

When we are forced to buy everything offshore because there is no local alternative maybe we can re-visit this thread. It will only take a couple more years.[/quote]

Firstly people are not cheating the system. The law is quite clear that there is not GST on imports over $1000. There are many reasons for this, the least of which is the cost return benefit.

But if you actually took the time to read any of the comments here and actually think about it, the examples that I and others have given of our overseas shopping, adding 10% GST would make not one iota of difference. The items we are buying we are being severely ripped off if we buy in Australia. Indeed many here have said if the same item only cost marginally more here then they would buy it here, but not when in my case it is half the price overseas, and others thousands cheaper despite the goods being made here.

So really your, and Gery Harveys GST issue is nothing but a diversion and blissful ignorance of the real reason people are buying overseas.[/quote]

Can you say honestly that all your GST free online purchases have cost under $1,000 because I know a lot of people who have purchased goods worth several thousand dollars who have not been billed for GST.

It's a rort on a huge scale.[/quote]

When citing the failure of the government to collect GST on under $1,000 purchases because of the unfavourable cost return benefit, did it occur to you that the MRRT introduced by Labor was also operating with an unfavourable cost return benefit.?

Labor were quite happy to let that one run though. Bit of a double standard, what?[/quote]

You do realise citing the MRRT as a failure that the miners were able to write off massive costs in the first few years, and if left it would have started to generate a positive return. I mean to say if the tax was of no nett cost to the miners why did they oppose it so much?

Not that I sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, except your constant blaming of Labor for everything, including this GST issue. Despite of course the GST being a Liberal party introduced tax, and with the Liebral party currently in power and having been in power for 8 of the 14 years the GST has existed.[/quote]

The GST was actually first mooted by Paul Keating but his Labor colleagues saw it as electoral poison and it was dumped as policy.

You need to use your spell-checker more often, the word is spelt Liberal not Liebral.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site