No Myer for Westfield Woden after all

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

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.

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

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.

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

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.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

Yes I can honestly say that. About the only thing I have brought that has cost over $1000 was a TV and it came from an Australian retailer, so had GST.

As for the people you know quite clearly if they didn’t pay anything then who ever sent their goods did not declare the proper value for customs calculations.

I’ll be honest also and admit that I buy some stuff online and it is delivered direct from overseas. I have never been asked to complete a Customs declaration for any of these transactions.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

Yes I can honestly say that. About the only thing I have brought that has cost over $1000 was a TV and it came from an Australian retailer, so had GST.

As for the people you know quite clearly if they didn’t pay anything then who ever sent their goods did not declare the proper value for customs calculations.

Funky1 said :

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.”

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.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

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?

There may be some smaller (not listed on the stock exchange) Australian retailers that are making big profits, but the listed ones, particularly those that rely on discretionary dollars, are typically producing shrinking profits. So if these latter retailers are engaging in rip-offs on a regular basis, it’s not translating to the bottom line. I’m happy to agree that some could lift their game, and learn from overseas competitors, but the costs of doing business, and of serving small, fragmented local markets are surely a major reason for the perceived rip-offs.

As to instances of Australian-made (or at least focused) merchandise being cheaper overseas than it is here, I wonder if manufacturers or wholesalers ever dump, sorry, sell more cheaply, slower selling merchandise offshore in an effort to maintain the local price while getting out of a bad decision…….?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

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.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

Correction 2nd line, should read GST on purchased UNDER $1000 not over.

dungfungus said :

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.

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.

“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”

And some say Canberra is boring? Sheesh with excitement like that, look out Paris, London and Washington DC, there’s a new player on the block!!

HiddenDragon said :

dungfungus said :

Wily_Bear said :

dungfungus said :

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Some time ago I purchased an Australian made saddle from a tack shop in Kentucky USA for less than half the price of the same saddle in local stores, including shipping. The saddle arrived less than a week later with the saving running to over a thousand dollars. I can only conclude someone is taking the consumer for a ride (so to speak), given the item was manufactured less than four hours drive away. Many will pay a small premium to support and protect local jobs, but there is a limit.
If the Australian retail sector cannot or will not compete, then our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

In all seriousness, this really is the problem. For several decades now, we’ve been busily getting rid of Australian industries which cannot match international competitors. Sadly, most of what has replaced the lost industries and jobs is in a domestically focused services sector which, in turn, is now under serious pressure from overseas. Beyond that, we’ve got a declining mining sector, a hefty public sector which is ripe for serious rationalisation, and a relatively small (in terms of numbers employed) knowledge industry sector which too often loses its most promising participants overseas. In all of this, it is difficult to see economically sustainable jobs to keep 23 million-plus people in the manner to which we’ve become accustomed.

Overriding those fundamental problems (that our eager global bargain hunters ignore) we have an unsustainably high immigration level drawing heavily on our ever increasing social security budget and a burgeoning older population that will be requiring aged care services and even more dependency on social services.
Whether they like it or not, Australia’s’ young people will be working in market gardens and aged care facilities for wages that will only supply the basics of life.

Zultan said :

JC said :

As for changing direction, again as mentioned I lived in the UK during the on-line revolution over there (circa 2006 onwards) and the business there had no trouble reacting and changing with the exact same issues as Australian business face. They managed to do it, they are also subject to US imports, yet no cries for government protection. Why is Australia so different?

Apart from the hundreds of shops that disappeared: http://www.buzzfeed.com/scottybryan/32-shops-that-have-gone-into-administration-since-the-start#1md4czm

As I have been saying retail changes. Sure some shops closed, others have open and others have prospered.

But as for the list, if you know the UK retail scene, you would probably realise that most of those closures have nothing what so ever to do with on-line trading, or more to the point goods imported VAT free.

In fact the only ones I reckon you could blame on that are Borders and the closure of Zavvi stores. Looking at Amazon here.

That said talking about adapting to changes to the market, Zavvi still survives, but as an on-line only shop with some of the stores changed to HMV.

Now what I would really like to see in Australia is an Argos style set-up.

For those that have never had the experience it is a catalogue department store. You choose what you want in the store through their catalogue (some stores now on tablet PC’s). You pay then wait 5 minutes and the staff get it from out the back, with of course the cost savings by not having a massive show room passed onto consumers with keen pricing. Oh they too have adapted with on-line shopping, with click and collect or delivery and a larger range on-line that can be found in store.

Captain RAAF said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

However the savings are often 30-40% so 10% will do little to make a change. I bought a camera lens a few years ago and I paid GST on it as it was over $1000. I still saved around $1000 as it was $2500 here vs $1300 from the USA. Someone one was screwing someone, but it wasn’t me. I was using my ability as a consumer to purchase where it was cheapest. In fact businesses that have done well in Australia are those that are no longer charging Australians more, just because they can. Sell an item for only 10% more and you’d find most people couldn’t be bothered going overseas. But that is the points, the retailers suffering are because their 30-40% or more markups just don’t work anymore.

Australian online retailers are going fine. Their service can be a bit slow but many seem to have been running for 5+years, at least the ones I use have been.

That’s spot on Watto, the margins appear to be massive over here. I buy a lot of stuff for my car from the US, some of it is available from re-sellers here in Australia but the difference in price is generally 70-100% markup.
They can go root their boots as far as I’m concerned! If they weren’t so greedy, they would have my business but they all seem to be hell bent on paying for their yachts and villa in the south of France this year, not over a reasonable period of time!

Of course our overheads are higher, this chestnut gets rolled out all the time but if businesses here in Oz are arguing for a 10% GST on goods over a thousand dollars then we must assume that that is the figure that will bring the price of their goods in line with the imported stuff, but it doesn’t, because they are gouging us far more than what it costs them in overheads to run a business!!

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.

dungfungus said :

Wily_Bear said :

dungfungus said :

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Some time ago I purchased an Australian made saddle from a tack shop in Kentucky USA for less than half the price of the same saddle in local stores, including shipping. The saddle arrived less than a week later with the saving running to over a thousand dollars. I can only conclude someone is taking the consumer for a ride (so to speak), given the item was manufactured less than four hours drive away. Many will pay a small premium to support and protect local jobs, but there is a limit.
If the Australian retail sector cannot or will not compete, then our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

In all seriousness, this really is the problem. For several decades now, we’ve been busily getting rid of Australian industries which cannot match international competitors. Sadly, most of what has replaced the lost industries and jobs is in a domestically focused services sector which, in turn, is now under serious pressure from overseas. Beyond that, we’ve got a declining mining sector, a hefty public sector which is ripe for serious rationalisation, and a relatively small (in terms of numbers employed) knowledge industry sector which too often loses its most promising participants overseas. In all of this, it is difficult to see economically sustainable jobs to keep 23 million-plus people in the manner to which we’ve become accustomed.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

Things change all the time. Example, when I was you I, and several of my class mates worked weekends pumping petrol in full service service stations. The industry has changed, those jobs no longer exist of course, but kids can still find weekend work can they not?

Nothing stays the same forever, and nor should it, especially through government intervention. By the sounds of it you are all for free enterprise, but so long as the government protects you. Thats not how the world works I am afraid, except maybe in communist North Korea.

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.

When is the last time you went to any shop on a weekend? Cafés, bakeries and supermarkets &c are often staffed by juniors and I hope they are getting penalty rates.
Simply saying kids don’t want to work is incorrect.
If you want to enjoy the standard of living we have in this country then put your short arms in yòur long pockets and support Australian business. Your dollar trickles down the line and helps increase someone else’s standard of living.
If you want to pay no more than $5 for anything then perhaps you need to leave our shores and enjoy quality life in SE Asia…

JC said :

As for changing direction, again as mentioned I lived in the UK during the on-line revolution over there (circa 2006 onwards) and the business there had no trouble reacting and changing with the exact same issues as Australian business face. They managed to do it, they are also subject to US imports, yet no cries for government protection. Why is Australia so different?

Apart from the hundreds of shops that disappeared: http://www.buzzfeed.com/scottybryan/32-shops-that-have-gone-into-administration-since-the-start#1md4czm

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

However the savings are often 30-40% so 10% will do little to make a change. I bought a camera lens a few years ago and I paid GST on it as it was over $1000. I still saved around $1000 as it was $2500 here vs $1300 from the USA. Someone one was screwing someone, but it wasn’t me. I was using my ability as a consumer to purchase where it was cheapest. In fact businesses that have done well in Australia are those that are no longer charging Australians more, just because they can. Sell an item for only 10% more and you’d find most people couldn’t be bothered going overseas. But that is the points, the retailers suffering are because their 30-40% or more markups just don’t work anymore.

Australian online retailers are going fine. Their service can be a bit slow but many seem to have been running for 5+years, at least the ones I use have been.

That’s spot on Watto, the margins appear to be massive over here. I buy a lot of stuff for my car from the US, some of it is available from re-sellers here in Australia but the difference in price is generally 70-100% markup.
They can go root their boots as far as I’m concerned! If they weren’t so greedy, they would have my business but they all seem to be hell bent on paying for their yachts and villa in the south of France this year, not over a reasonable period of time!

Of course our overheads are higher, this chestnut gets rolled out all the time but if businesses here in Oz are arguing for a 10% GST on goods over a thousand dollars then we must assume that that is the figure that will bring the price of their goods in line with the imported stuff, but it doesn’t, because they are gouging us far more than what it costs them in overheads to run a business!!

JC said :

dungfungus said :

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

Things change all the time. Example, when I was you I, and several of my class mates worked weekends pumping petrol in full service service stations. The industry has changed, those jobs no longer exist of course, but kids can still find weekend work can they not?

Nothing stays the same forever, and nor should it, especially through government intervention. By the sounds of it you are all for free enterprise, but so long as the government protects you. Thats not how the world works I am afraid, except maybe in communist North Korea.

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.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

However the savings are often 30-40% so 10% will do little to make a change. I bought a camera lens a few years ago and I paid GST on it as it was over $1000. I still saved around $1000 as it was $2500 here vs $1300 from the USA. Someone one was screwing someone, but it wasn’t me. I was using my ability as a consumer to purchase where it was cheapest. In fact businesses that have done well in Australia are those that are no longer charging Australians more, just because they can. Sell an item for only 10% more and you’d find most people couldn’t be bothered going overseas. But that is the points, the retailers suffering are because their 30-40% or more markups just don’t work anymore.

Australian online retailers are going fine. Their service can be a bit slow but many seem to have been running for 5+years, at least the ones I use have been.

dungfungus said :

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

Things change all the time. Example, when I was you I, and several of my class mates worked weekends pumping petrol in full service service stations. The industry has changed, those jobs no longer exist of course, but kids can still find weekend work can they not?

Nothing stays the same forever, and nor should it, especially through government intervention. By the sounds of it you are all for free enterprise, but so long as the government protects you. Thats not how the world works I am afraid, except maybe in communist North Korea.

dungfungus said :

Not only would costs of recovery be collected but more importantly, GST would be and this would assist the states and territories to balance their budgets.
VAT should not have been charged for your purchase in the UK so you were ripped off.
You ask “why is Australia so different?”. If you ever read The Tyranny of Distance by Professor Geoffrey Blainey you may understand.

Nonsense on both accounts.

As for the tyranny of distance, a few posters above have given examples of where it was cheaper to buy specialist Australian made equipment overseas. Care to explain that one?

Wily_Bear said :

dungfungus said :

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Some time ago I purchased an Australian made saddle from a tack shop in Kentucky USA for less than half the price of the same saddle in local stores, including shipping. The saddle arrived less than a week later with the saving running to over a thousand dollars. I can only conclude someone is taking the consumer for a ride (so to speak), given the item was manufactured less than four hours drive away. Many will pay a small premium to support and protect local jobs, but there is a limit.
If the Australian retail sector cannot or will not compete, then our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO

” our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO”
Pray tell us all where this Utopian place of employment is.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

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. What you are saying is that if those costs added to your on-line purchase it would not be competitive for “you”.
I think you are wrong about VAT (or you are being ripped off) because VAT (like GST) isn’t charged when the goods are being “exported”.
Retail in Australia has been blitzed by on-line shopping They have billions invested in bricks and mortar and long term leases. It takes years to change direction and some will simply be unable to do so.
As long as people like you are happy to see Canberra’s shopping precincts turn into retail wastelands like in Detroit, who cares?
Have you checked to see where you superannuation is invested?

Actually no I said even if GST were charged in the example I gave I would still be $180 better off. As for the cost of collection your right, it wouldn’t cost the government, well on a $1000 purchase, in that case they may make their money back, but anything under that it will cost. You do realise that is why there is a limit don’t you? It is not some Labor conspiracy. So what is the point, except to get the government to act as a protection racket for inefficient business.

Oh I am so pleased you know so much about my on-line purchases that you know that UK VAT wasn’t added to my example purchase. For the record you are WRONG. My invoice clearly shows the VAT amount. The company I buy from is not very large, remember I said they were a bricks and mortar establishment and exports are a small part of their business, so maybe not worth their while. Though of course other business do remove it.

As for changing direction, again as mentioned I lived in the UK during the on-line revolution over there (circa 2006 onwards) and the business there had no trouble reacting and changing with the exact same issues as Australian business face. They managed to do it, they are also subject to US imports, yet no cries for government protection. Why is Australia so different?

Not only would costs of recovery be collected but more importantly, GST would be and this would assist the states and territories to balance their budgets.
VAT should not have been charged for your purchase in the UK so you were ripped off.
You ask “why is Australia so different?”. If you ever read The Tyranny of Distance by Professor Geoffrey Blainey you may understand.

dungfungus said :

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. What you are saying is that if those costs added to your on-line purchase it would not be competitive for “you”.
I think you are wrong about VAT (or you are being ripped off) because VAT (like GST) isn’t charged when the goods are being “exported”.
Retail in Australia has been blitzed by on-line shopping They have billions invested in bricks and mortar and long term leases. It takes years to change direction and some will simply be unable to do so.
As long as people like you are happy to see Canberra’s shopping precincts turn into retail wastelands like in Detroit, who cares?
Have you checked to see where you superannuation is invested?

Actually no I said even if GST were charged in the example I gave I would still be $180 better off. As for the cost of collection your right, it wouldn’t cost the government, well on a $1000 purchase, in that case they may make their money back, but anything under that it will cost. You do realise that is why there is a limit don’t you? It is not some Labor conspiracy. So what is the point, except to get the government to act as a protection racket for inefficient business.

Oh I am so pleased you know so much about my on-line purchases that you know that UK VAT wasn’t added to my example purchase. For the record you are WRONG. My invoice clearly shows the VAT amount. The company I buy from is not very large, remember I said they were a bricks and mortar establishment and exports are a small part of their business, so maybe not worth their while. Though of course other business do remove it.

As for changing direction, again as mentioned I lived in the UK during the on-line revolution over there (circa 2006 onwards) and the business there had no trouble reacting and changing with the exact same issues as Australian business face. They managed to do it, they are also subject to US imports, yet no cries for government protection. Why is Australia so different?

Wily_Bear said :

dungfungus said :

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Some time ago I purchased an Australian made saddle from a tack shop in Kentucky USA for less than half the price of the same saddle in local stores, including shipping. The saddle arrived less than a week later with the saving running to over a thousand dollars. I can only conclude someone is taking the consumer for a ride (so to speak), given the item was manufactured less than four hours drive away. Many will pay a small premium to support and protect local jobs, but there is a limit.
If the Australian retail sector cannot or will not compete, then our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO

I’ve been there myself, PWR radiator, made in QLD, several week wait from Aussie suppliers. Bought it from Texas, had it in three days for half the goddamn price. The thing had been shipped from QLD, to Texas, and back to me, for less money than any local could give it to me, and was in my hand in a fraction of the time!

It is interesting to see prices here and overseas. Lately I’ve bought Canadian sporting gear from a shop in Sydney and have paid approximately the same price here as it would be online with postage. Then I bought an electronic gizmo made in Sydney which sells for less in the US. Not a lot of rhyme nor reason.

dungfungus said :

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Some time ago I purchased an Australian made saddle from a tack shop in Kentucky USA for less than half the price of the same saddle in local stores, including shipping. The saddle arrived less than a week later with the saving running to over a thousand dollars. I can only conclude someone is taking the consumer for a ride (so to speak), given the item was manufactured less than four hours drive away. Many will pay a small premium to support and protect local jobs, but there is a limit.
If the Australian retail sector cannot or will not compete, then our children are probably better employed elsewhere IMO

Fascinating to see, yet again, the perspective that Australian businesses are – compared to their overseas competitors – rip-off merchants offering third rate service and merchandise, and that there is no good excuse for their shortcomings, while the same unforgiving expectations and comparisons never quite seem to be applied to the public sector (where there are always good and compelling reasons for high costs and patchy and indifferent service).

What a revelation it would be to see the remuneration and staffing levels, and working hours and conditions “enjoyed” by the staff of the big international online retailers applied in the local public service.

dungfungus said :

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

The horrible trading results could be for any number of reasons. For example:

– poor customer service;
– price gouging;
– not stocking what people want; etc

dungfungus said :

Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.

This is a concern, but it applies more widely than just retail. And you can only get so far selling each other clothes, mowing each others’ lawns, serving each other coffee, etc.

dungfungus said :

When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

Are you claiming that Australian retailers aren’t exposed to the same foreign exchange risks, or that they won’t pass on their increased costs? Or perhaps that we won’t be able to afford to buy anything at all?

Minx1977 said :

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

That is a very myopic view. Prices in Australia are not exaggerated – look at the horrible trading results they are announcing.
Hope you don’t have children who will be looking for a job soon.
When the ar*e falls out of the Australian dollar we won’t be able to afford to shop offshore via internet anymore..

rosscoact said :

Intelligent businesses are all online in a big way and use multi-channels and excellent customer service to get people to be loyal to them.

Nordstroms are an example. They use there bricks and mortar stores as warehouses and despatch services for their online delivery. There is no difference in price fro either channel.

If you buy from their online store and want to change it, just go into any physical store and do so.

Myers, DJs, Harvey Norman etc are in their death throes by any measure and unless they change and try to understand what their customer wants, will be dead in a decade.

Takeover by a grocers is about the only chance that Myers has

Good summary and prediction on where its heading. Not so good outcome for the nominated examples however.
Remember what happened to “one hour photo kiosks” when digital cameras were invented?

Intelligent businesses are all online in a big way and use multi-channels and excellent customer service to get people to be loyal to them.

Nordstroms are an example. They use there bricks and mortar stores as warehouses and despatch services for their online delivery. There is no difference in price fro either channel. If you buy from their online store and want to change it, just go into any physical store and do so.

Myers, DJs, Harvey Norman etc are in their death throes by any measure and unless they change and try to understand what their customer wants, will be dead in a decade.

Takeover by a grocers is about the only chance that Myers has

JC said :

But getting back to retail and who is screwing who? Well if I can import something from the UK for $200, 20% UK VAT and delivery (within one week) included, but the bricks and mortar shop in Canberra wants to charge me $400 for the same thing, then I am being screwed.

Even if GST were added here I am still $180 better off. And and in the example I gave the shop in the UK is also a bricks and mortar shop too, not some faceless warehouse like Amazon.

Now if the local shop charged a reasonable price, even say $300 (considering the higher cost of wages here) I would be tempted to buy local, but not when it is $200 cheaper OS.

You’re ignoring the fact the the GBP exchange rate collapsed during the GFC and has never recovered to historical levels. If it ever goes back to 2.5 (or even 3) to 1 nothing from the UK will seem cheap.. Also, UK VAT isn’t charged on exports from the UK to coutries outside of Europe. As someone living in Canberra you will already understand that the costs of living and employing staff are significantly higher here too.

+1 for JC’s comments – I would love to shop locally but the retailers are hardly inspiring. Westfield are not particularly good landlords and the retailers seem to find the whole issue of having customers a huge inconvenience. Example; wanted to order a book through Dymocks and they said to allow approximately 6 weeks for it to come from another store in WA. 6 weeks?! Or…..I could go online to amazon UK, order it for a fraction of the cost, even taking P&P into account, and be reading it within a fortnight. I am happy to spend my money here but please don’t ask me to accept poor service, poor choice and exaggerated pricing and cover it up with ‘the government did it, miss’….

JC said :

dungfungus said :

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

If it is under $1000, that is the key. Under that amount the cost of charging far outweighs the cost collecting, especially in a Liebral world of small government, that you so love.

Besides you haven’t answered the question if it is such an issue then why has Abbott not done something? Or indeed it was the Liberals that introduced the GST yet left this out. Yet you blame Labor.

But getting back to retail and who is screwing who? Well if I can import something from the UK for $200, 20% UK VAT and delivery (within one week) included, but the bricks and mortar shop in Canberra wants to charge me $400 for the same thing, then I am being screwed.

Even if GST were added here I am still $180 better off. And and in the example I gave the shop in the UK is also a bricks and mortar shop too, not some faceless warehouse like Amazon.

Now if the local shop charged a reasonable price, even say $300 (considering the higher cost of wages here) I would be tempted to buy local, but not when it is $200 cheaper OS.

Oh you have also failed to address my issue about why retail here has been so slow to adapt to on-line shopping and why it is still so poor. Yet you expect the government to somehow protect these business?

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. What you are saying is that if those costs added to your on-line purchase it would not be competitive for “you”.
I think you are wrong about VAT (or you are being ripped off) because VAT (like GST) isn’t charged when the goods are being “exported”.
Retail in Australia has been blitzed by on-line shopping They have billions invested in bricks and mortar and long term leases. It takes years to change direction and some will simply be unable to do so.
As long as people like you are happy to see Canberra’s shopping precincts turn into retail wastelands like in Detroit, who cares?
Have you checked to see where you superannuation is invested?

dungfungus said :

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

If it is under $1000, that is the key. Under that amount the cost of charging far outweighs the cost collecting, especially in a Liebral world of small government, that you so love.

Besides you haven’t answered the question if it is such an issue then why has Abbott not done something? Or indeed it was the Liberals that introduced the GST yet left this out. Yet you blame Labor.

But getting back to retail and who is screwing who? Well if I can import something from the UK for $200, 20% UK VAT and delivery (within one week) included, but the bricks and mortar shop in Canberra wants to charge me $400 for the same thing, then I am being screwed.

Even if GST were added here I am still $180 better off. And and in the example I gave the shop in the UK is also a bricks and mortar shop too, not some faceless warehouse like Amazon.

Now if the local shop charged a reasonable price, even say $300 (considering the higher cost of wages here) I would be tempted to buy local, but not when it is $200 cheaper OS.

Oh you have also failed to address my issue about why retail here has been so slow to adapt to on-line shopping and why it is still so poor. Yet you expect the government to somehow protect these business?

They already have two stores in Canberra, including Canberra Centre just up the road. Why would they want to put a store in Woden in the current climate?

MERC600 said :

Well dammit ,, they sell good desert boots.

Bad news indeed for the booners of Weston Creek.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

GST is applied to imports when an importer is a distributor. This means that the distributor, who imports a container load of a certain item to retailin Australia, has to pay an extra 10% per item whereas if you or I buy it direct offshore from the same offshore supplier and it is under $1,000 we don’t.
Yeah, that’s “tuff” luck. Who is screwing who exactly?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

And what successful business sector are you in JC?

dungfungus said :

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What a load of cr#p. Whilst on-line retail is taking away business, what have Australian business done to counter this? Nothing except whinge that GST isn’t applied to imports.

Those that have an on-line presence have been very late in coming to the party and what they offer is still very poor in range and over priced. No wonder people look overseas.

I lived in the UK during the on-line boom and companies over there embraced it rather than ignored it. Whilst the big players like thier version of Myer/Harvey Norman etc have closed stores, they all survived and have not seen their business taken away. All the major department stores have looked to ways to keep customers rather than relying on government to make it hard for them to go elsewhere. Some examples include an expanded product range (most of which is online only) and they also introduced click and collect at store (any in Aus offer this yet) and of course they offer good prices on delivery.

As for the rest of your rant, so typical of your anti Labor stance, blame them for everything.

Oh Abbott hasn’t been in power for a year now, if the GST on imports was such an issue why hasn’t he introduced it? Reason is simple actually, it would make stuff all difference and cost more to administer than it would re-coup. Besides it is not the roll out government to protect business so they can bend us over and screw us. That is what the likes of Mr Harvey want’s.

What they need is some competition to liven them up. If they cannot survive tuff luck, over time businesses have come and gone and evolved to today’s modern expectations. Time for Australian business to evolve rather than whinge.

MERC600 said :

Well dammit ,, they sell good desert boots.

When department stores start to sell any boot or shoe in sizes greater than Men’s 12, I’ll start shopping at them again.

It appears Myer are also about to withdraw from rebuilding a new store in Hobart following the fire that destroyed the previous store 12 months ago.
Retailing in Australia is going through a difficult phase following the failure of the previous government imposing GST on all online shopping and the entry of offshore fashion retailers.
Also, the expansion of established offshore entities like Aldi and Ikea, the latter two being promoted especially in Canberra by the former Stanhope Labor government and the current Gallagher Labor minority government.
Still no noises from the Retail Employees Union.

What does this mean for the redevelopment?
Wonder if target are also pulling out?

Well dammit ,, they sell good desert boots.

oh no, what a shame.

anyone know what will happen to site of the Alexander and Albemarle Buildings once they are demolished?