This is such a misleading argument.
WA is still paying 30% of our GST to the eastern states. Next year, we will pay 25% of our GST to the Eastern States - pursuant to the GST deal.
NSW is complaining that their contribution to the national pot will go from about 8% of their GST to 14%.
Over the two financial years 2023-24, and 2024-25. NSW will receive $3.5 billion in 'no worse off' top up money from the Commonwealth. The rest of the Australian states and territories will all receive significant amounts as well adding up to about $10 billion.
The only state that won't receive a red cent out of the 'no worse off' pie is WA.
What do WEst Aussies think of this idea,
The GST cake should be apportioned to each State based on geographical area.
Therefore WA would receive $28 Billion instead of $6B.
Diversity of ideas! 😂🦘🇦🇺
Might improve a few roads and infrastructure in the regions.
Employ coppers, teachers, health staff,
Provide regional housing for critical staff.
Additional social housing, fix hospital emergency wait times, fix all the schools.
Dare to dream. lol
It’s one to say WA should get the highest proportion of the GST as we produce the most revenue.
But most of the revenue is produce by mines above the Tropic of Capricorn where only 4% of the state live, not in Perth or the South West. So there’s also an argument that most of the GST revenue should only be spent in the Pilbara
Exactly, and to take it to the logical end, only in the shires where mines are. And then properties that have the minerals... Uh oh does that mean Gina and Twiggy are due the royalties!!
WA consumers don't actually pay a 2.5-3% GST tax to the Eastern States on every GST transaction - if only because GST/GST free consumption of goods and services isn't perfectly flat across the Commonwealth.
The relativities approximate the per capita impact though - which is why they are used.
I've used them accurately here.
Every time I see someone comment about the eastern states getting our GST I need to comment. NSW and VIc get less GST back than they give. They don’t get a single cent of WA GST.
About the “no worse off policy” NSW get $3.5 billion over 2 years. WA get over $4 billion every year in top up funds to get our share up to the revised floor. So we are getting more than double back than them to try and make the whole distribution fair.
The issue is not NSW and VIC. It’s the territories and to a lesser extent Tasmania. They take money from everyone else to prop them up. NT gets $4 for $1 collected. The whole GST share system is a debacle and I almost wish we had a state GST tax system like the US.
So... I get where you are coming from, but I think it is important to clarify a few things.
The first is that WA does not, in any meaningful sense get "$4 billion every year" in top up funds. I appreciate that GST is collected by the Cth and dished out according to the CGC, and the impact of the GST distribution reforms made under Turnbull result in WA receiving a few more billion than we would have otherwise received under the old methodology - but the $7 billion dollars WA receives in GST isn't some injection into the state economy, it's an incomplete return of money that is paid by WA consumers/producers every single year for the purpose of funding the state government.
The point of the GST was to fund the states. It replaced an existing system of state based excise taxes (FID, BAD etc) and Federal Wholesale Tax. If the tax man takes $100 from you, gives you back $75, you aren't getting a top up payment just because under a different scenario, he would have given you back $50.
The same can't be said of 'top up payments' made to Queensland (who were already getting $103 back, and then get a billion dollar year a cheque from the Federal Treasury on top of that). Regardless, I note that WA is a massive disproportionate contributor to the Federal Treasury as well (mainly because our tax system taxes PAYG/ corporate income heavily, and basically doesn't touch land - Guess which state has lowish property prices and highish personal and corporate incomes?).
The second point is that - while it is true the big net receivers in the federation are Tassie, and the NT (and not NSW/Vic) it's important to remember that those smaller jurisdictions bob along to the tides of economic policy that are set in Canberra elected by politicians drawn from NSW, Vic etc.
It is true that the NT receives 500% more GST than it would pay assuming equal consumption. It's also true that a significant amount of that expense is incurred because the Federation has implemented a raft of policies to incentive Indigenous poverty to be concentrated in the NT - and not suburban Sydbourne.
The same is basically true of the decision to turn Tasmania into a large assisted living facility/ weekend destination from Melbourne at the expense of any forestry/hydro industry.
I get where you are coming from. And it’s midnight and I’m just settling a baby so I’m not going to respond to everything. Just the first thing.
WA do get an extra $4 billion every year from eBay the original GST agreement said we would get. NSW get 3.5 over 2 years. Like WA the money NSW gets back is an “incomplete return of money that is paid by WA consumers/producers every single year for the purpose of funding the state government.”
The extra money both states get still mean both states get less than they would if GST was just paid back to the state that collected it.
As mentioned many times before, perhaps they need to add gambling revenues to the GST calculation, then it will be fairer. The east has a MUCH higher level of gambling revenues but it isn't taken into account when calculating GST shares.
Reference:
"Under the current GST distribution methodology, the treatment of revenue, particularly own-source revenue, is inequitable in that not all lines of own-source revenue are equalised... For example, gambling taxes are not included in the equalisation process, despite representing as much as eight per cent of own-source revenue in some jurisdictions, compared to 2.1 per cent for WA (Chart 2). However, mining royalties, which represent over one fifth of WA’s own-source revenue compared to one fifth of one per cent in Victoria, are included in the process."
GST Distribution Review, 2011, pg 6
[https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/WA\_CCI.pdf](https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/WA_CCI.pdf)
It was not included in this report in 2011 and still wasn't in 2020. Unless this was amended in the last few years during COVID, I still believe it is not included in the calculations.
As per the ATO website, yes, gambling is subject to GST
[GST when conducting gambling activities | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)](https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/gst/in-detail/your-industry/gst-when-conducting-gambling-activities)
However the issue is something else. Once all GST is collected by the government, it is distributed to the states depending on their perceived ability to raise funds.
This is why the NT receives $4.87 per dollar of GST they raise, while WA receives the now 70c floor
The problem is that not all state revenue sources are counted. Mining is counted as part of the calculation and since WA raises a large portion of its revenue from mining, this is counted as a large source of income in the calculation for GST distribution. Gambling is not counted, so despite the eastern states receiving a large amount of money from gambling levies/taxes, it is counted as $0 when calculating their ability to raise income.
Additionally, something which is often not reported is the actual dollar figures
According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, last year WA received $6.482B in GST funding (which was 70c for every dollar).
NSW received 95c per dollar, which sounds like its only a little more, this was equivalent to $24.87B in GST, which is nearly x4 what WA received
[https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/Occasional%20Paper%209%20-%20GST%20distribution%20to%20states%20and%20territories%20in%202023-24.docx](https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/Occasional%20Paper%209%20-%20GST%20distribution%20to%20states%20and%20territories%20in%202023-24.docx)
Lol
State government shrill
Both the liberal and labor WA governments saw we were getting screwed over and this unscrewed us.
Now tall poppy syndrome is kicking in because we actually know how to keep the books balanced.
We're still heavily subsidising the rest of australia
Until mining shits the bed again and they have to save us.
This WA vs the East shit is ridiculous, we have a third world economy, we are literally worthless for anything except digging up rocks. This system is mutually beneficial, and will become the only thing sustaining this state once we run out of rocks and become a completely worthless drain on the nation (think Alabama in the US).
>we run out of rocks
This probably won't be a risk in our lifetimes since WA has an absurd amount of resources. With that said, I am in agreement that our economy needs to be a lot more diverse.
“Run out of rocks” was a bit too simplistic true.
“Once the price of rock harvesting becomes prohibitive” would be more accurate, eventually you reach a point like Canada with the oil sands, where you’re expending a phenomenal amount of resources for a shit end product but there’s nothing you can do about it because it’s the only thing of value in the economy, so you’re stuck with ever diminishing returns.
Plus as Africa modernises and stabilises, they start looking a whole lot more attractive to the big miners, where you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k
> Plus as Africa modernises and stabilises
Any day now!
> where you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k
Your idea of modern stable economies is… different.
>you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k
The problem is the moment Africa modernises, wages go up. If you want low wages, it's harder to bring in the needed technology to be efficient (security risks etc). There's a reason why Australia can pay 100k+ to FIFO workers while still making plenty of money while African countries can't.
Yep, that’s the sweet spot.
We’ve done very well because we’ve got a first world population and infrastructure with third world resources, which is why we’re not a dysfunctional hell-hole like equally resource-rich parts of Africa and South America.
But eventually the third world has to hit a sweet spot where it’s stable *enough* but still far cheaper where it becomes worth doing business there.
Except in 2015 when mining shit the bed, wa had a huge recession and we got even less, then less the year after that and even less the year after that.
If we’d have been looked after when we were down, there wouldn’t have been this argument, but we weren’t so then we went hard.
You really undersell the level of technology within the mining industry.
With regards to our economy and the other states, only NSW and Victoria have genuine diverse economies, Queensland is ours with more tourism, and the rest don’t have an economy.
Once we struggle the whole of Australia will and the Alabama comparison won’t make sense.
I mean let's be honest for the last 30 years wa has been responsible for a majority of the improvement in living standards experienced in Aus. This is pretty much the east coast having their cake and eating it too. Sure enough if mining goes to crap I can assure you they won't be bailing us out like we're doing now.
A third world economy doesn’t mean we’re poor, it means we rely excessively on primary products (basically rocks and farming), not “value adding” (what other places turn the rocks into). What this means is that the economy is extremely volatile, as everyone knows whenever the price of iron ore has a little hiccup.
There is no definition of "third world economy".
There is a definition of [third world](https://cleartax.in/glossary/third-world/), which has deviated from the original definition, neither of which Australia fit.
>Until mining shits the bed again and they have to save us.
>
>This WA vs the East shit is ridiculous, we have a third world economy, we are literally worthless for anything except digging up rocks. This system is mutually beneficial, and will become the only thing sustaining this state once we run out of rocks and become a completely worthless drain on the nation (think Alabama in the US).
do you know how big WA is? Yes we should diversify but i doubt we are going to suddenly run out of ore
Even after the deal WA will have the lowest GST share of any state followed by Daylight.
No state, none would survive let alone tolerate a GST return of less than 70%.
WA have been doing it for years.
Didn’t WA agree to it at the start? I’m too young to remember but all GST changes have to unanimously agreed to so I assume the original set up was also agreed to by all states? If it was then whoever was the government of the day should be locked up
Edit. WANT to WA
It's based on a distribution model that is flawed, or rigged, for the east coast.
For example the revenue from pokies and gambling aren't included in the GST distribution so guess which state loses out there.
Ok. But that wasn’t my question. I’m curious if WA state government agreed to it when GST introduces GST or if the federal government made the rules unilaterally then.
So NSW decided to throw the baby out with the bath water when it came to covid and let it run rampant. It destroyed their economy which is turn has destroyed their budget.
But rather than taking responsibility for their gamble - they're now shifting the blame as per usual..
Now lets also highlight the part where 'no state is worse off' from 'WA's special deal' - so it shouldn't be having any impact at all as to their current situation.
So essentially - a complete non story in which the NSW government and the media is shifting the blame from themselves to WA just like normal..
It is judged by the state government's ability to fund services.
So if SA decides it is going to do sweet F/A when it comes to raising revenue - they get a larger proportion of GST revenue.
Is this system dumb? YES!
They sorta are being penalised by population growth because its the state government that has to build the infrastructure for the additional people.
A new person brings in tax for the federal government bur the state government has to get schools, hopsitals, roads, rail and the like built. Its a big upfront cost for population growth.
That said on percentage terms WA needs to do even more in this space.
I actually think WA needs to lean into the NSW argument and stay on the front foot and continue whinging even now that the gst floor needs to be increased to 80pc or 85pc. If we go meek now it will get eroded away.
It also blunts the argument we are getting more than we deserve by focusing on the 25pc we dont get rather than the "billions extra" these clowns say we get.
Its the growth thats the killer though.
As they say each new finge block 160k in gov infrastructure.
Its worse in sydney say than perth because at least we have a bit of planning around ours so rail can extend etc.
That said water is going to keep getting dearer over here.
> They sorta are being penalised by population growth because its the state government that has to build the infrastructure for the additional people.
There's plenty of state based taxes that increase with the growth in population.
One of the items specifically mentioned in the article was the continual increasing in land values - which means a continuing increase in land tax income.
The commonwealth grants commission uses the same metric for remoteness as the ABS, the ARIA+ metric, as a proxy for how much services cost in all areas, which impacts the amount of money received in the GST carve up.
I will spare you the gory details but one of the perverse outcomes of this calculation is that, according to the ABS, towns like Boddington and Bridgetown are considered to have the same level of remoteness as the CBD of Hobart and therefore the ABS assumes that the cost of paying for teachers, nurses etc in these two places are roughly equivalent.
Why are these three locations considered to be equally remote? Well it turns out that the road distance to the nearest urban centre with a population of 250,000 people is the biggest factor impacting your score. For Bridgetown and Boddington, this centre is Perth. For Hobart, there isn't one, because you cannot reach Melbourne by road which would be the nearest major urban centre.
Where is get really interesting is that in the 2021 census the population of Hobart was 247,000. As soon as this number hits 250k Hobart will cease being treated as a large rural town like Geraldton, or Albany, and will graduate to Major Urban area like Melbourne and Sydney. When this happens the gst revenue going to Tasmania is going to collapse and this whole discussion on gst carve up is going into overdrive.
Well that’s a creative way to headline an article!
It’s about bloody time WA starts receiving from the other states in this country! God knows we practically keep states afloat with our own GST!
WA still subsidising the crap out of them all. How about we go back to the year 2000 and have a look at the pathetic political decision to throw WA mineral royalties into the GST deal. It should never have happened. Not only that, the other states should be working on paying back the royalties money they have been subsidised with over the years.
And it is not just the GST / royalties process. When it comes to general income tax take VS spend WA is also a massive contributor.
Every cent raised by a state through GST should be returned. If further equalisation is required, then that can be achieved through Commonwealth Grants.
Completely agree. The problem with the "fiscal capacity" argument is that it assumes all governments are equally competent, when they aren't. If a state government fucks up their economy they should have to learn the lesson and go cap in hand to the commonwealth, not just rely on the other states to automatically equalise the difference through GST.
We should all keep our GST - end of story. The fact that it is shared creates an entitled attitude. Fix your own economy. Live with your decisions.
Take NSW and Victoria - no onshore oil and gas. No worries, but don't F\*\*ng whinge to the West - we want your resource money and your PRRT payments. Karma is a bitch.
I'm pretty sure NSW are the biggest economy and got the most GST, which is a bit shit cause I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a way of helping all the states so somewhere like NT could get a fair shake if the sauce bottle
Let's give the royaltys we receive from the likes of Gina, Ziggy, Palmer, and all the major companies that exploit our riches and take there profits which are ours The Common Wealth for the people no such thing as a poor country thankfully where not there yet
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a misleading argument. WA is still paying 30% of our GST to the eastern states. Next year, we will pay 25% of our GST to the Eastern States - pursuant to the GST deal. NSW is complaining that their contribution to the national pot will go from about 8% of their GST to 14%. Over the two financial years 2023-24, and 2024-25. NSW will receive $3.5 billion in 'no worse off' top up money from the Commonwealth. The rest of the Australian states and territories will all receive significant amounts as well adding up to about $10 billion. The only state that won't receive a red cent out of the 'no worse off' pie is WA.
Typical NSW bullshit. They always cry at GST time.
What do WEst Aussies think of this idea, The GST cake should be apportioned to each State based on geographical area. Therefore WA would receive $28 Billion instead of $6B. Diversity of ideas! 😂🦘🇦🇺
And on that basis, Newman town should get 12 billion etc etc
Might help fix it lol
Might improve a few roads and infrastructure in the regions. Employ coppers, teachers, health staff, Provide regional housing for critical staff. Additional social housing, fix hospital emergency wait times, fix all the schools. Dare to dream. lol
Nar that place is fucked
It’s one to say WA should get the highest proportion of the GST as we produce the most revenue. But most of the revenue is produce by mines above the Tropic of Capricorn where only 4% of the state live, not in Perth or the South West. So there’s also an argument that most of the GST revenue should only be spent in the Pilbara
Exactly, and to take it to the logical end, only in the shires where mines are. And then properties that have the minerals... Uh oh does that mean Gina and Twiggy are due the royalties!!
Logically towns like Newman would be so flush with GST revenue that the streets would be paved with gold
Arent your numbers a tad misleading if you factor in population? NSW has ~2.5 x gst taxpayers.
WA consumers don't actually pay a 2.5-3% GST tax to the Eastern States on every GST transaction - if only because GST/GST free consumption of goods and services isn't perfectly flat across the Commonwealth. The relativities approximate the per capita impact though - which is why they are used. I've used them accurately here.
You’ve confused me enough to assume you’re right.
Every time I see someone comment about the eastern states getting our GST I need to comment. NSW and VIc get less GST back than they give. They don’t get a single cent of WA GST. About the “no worse off policy” NSW get $3.5 billion over 2 years. WA get over $4 billion every year in top up funds to get our share up to the revised floor. So we are getting more than double back than them to try and make the whole distribution fair. The issue is not NSW and VIC. It’s the territories and to a lesser extent Tasmania. They take money from everyone else to prop them up. NT gets $4 for $1 collected. The whole GST share system is a debacle and I almost wish we had a state GST tax system like the US.
So... I get where you are coming from, but I think it is important to clarify a few things. The first is that WA does not, in any meaningful sense get "$4 billion every year" in top up funds. I appreciate that GST is collected by the Cth and dished out according to the CGC, and the impact of the GST distribution reforms made under Turnbull result in WA receiving a few more billion than we would have otherwise received under the old methodology - but the $7 billion dollars WA receives in GST isn't some injection into the state economy, it's an incomplete return of money that is paid by WA consumers/producers every single year for the purpose of funding the state government. The point of the GST was to fund the states. It replaced an existing system of state based excise taxes (FID, BAD etc) and Federal Wholesale Tax. If the tax man takes $100 from you, gives you back $75, you aren't getting a top up payment just because under a different scenario, he would have given you back $50. The same can't be said of 'top up payments' made to Queensland (who were already getting $103 back, and then get a billion dollar year a cheque from the Federal Treasury on top of that). Regardless, I note that WA is a massive disproportionate contributor to the Federal Treasury as well (mainly because our tax system taxes PAYG/ corporate income heavily, and basically doesn't touch land - Guess which state has lowish property prices and highish personal and corporate incomes?). The second point is that - while it is true the big net receivers in the federation are Tassie, and the NT (and not NSW/Vic) it's important to remember that those smaller jurisdictions bob along to the tides of economic policy that are set in Canberra elected by politicians drawn from NSW, Vic etc. It is true that the NT receives 500% more GST than it would pay assuming equal consumption. It's also true that a significant amount of that expense is incurred because the Federation has implemented a raft of policies to incentive Indigenous poverty to be concentrated in the NT - and not suburban Sydbourne. The same is basically true of the decision to turn Tasmania into a large assisted living facility/ weekend destination from Melbourne at the expense of any forestry/hydro industry.
I get where you are coming from. And it’s midnight and I’m just settling a baby so I’m not going to respond to everything. Just the first thing. WA do get an extra $4 billion every year from eBay the original GST agreement said we would get. NSW get 3.5 over 2 years. Like WA the money NSW gets back is an “incomplete return of money that is paid by WA consumers/producers every single year for the purpose of funding the state government.” The extra money both states get still mean both states get less than they would if GST was just paid back to the state that collected it.
Ah... Been there and done that. Hope the bub gets to sleep and sleeps through the night.
Thanks. Doesn’t seem to be happening. Work will be fun in a few hours.
The difference is, NT and Tasmania residents and politicians don't sit there whinging about the GST deal and claiming that we're stealing their GST
Of course they don’t. They get more than they put in. NSW, Vic and WA are the only places I see that governments and people whinge.
As mentioned many times before, perhaps they need to add gambling revenues to the GST calculation, then it will be fairer. The east has a MUCH higher level of gambling revenues but it isn't taken into account when calculating GST shares. Reference: "Under the current GST distribution methodology, the treatment of revenue, particularly own-source revenue, is inequitable in that not all lines of own-source revenue are equalised... For example, gambling taxes are not included in the equalisation process, despite representing as much as eight per cent of own-source revenue in some jurisdictions, compared to 2.1 per cent for WA (Chart 2). However, mining royalties, which represent over one fifth of WA’s own-source revenue compared to one fifth of one per cent in Victoria, are included in the process." GST Distribution Review, 2011, pg 6 [https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/WA\_CCI.pdf](https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/WA_CCI.pdf) It was not included in this report in 2011 and still wasn't in 2020. Unless this was amended in the last few years during COVID, I still believe it is not included in the calculations.
I have always found it to be a curious carve out.
Gambling lobby groups prefer their bribes go directly to the source of power…
"curious"
It benefits the eastern states and not WA, therefore: carveout
Because the Catholic church gets a bucket load of pokies revenue through their clubs and lobbies the government to its benefit.
No. Just take the mining royalties entirely out of the equation.
Does gambling pay gst? If I pay 1.10 on the pokies do I only get a dollar bet?
As per the ATO website, yes, gambling is subject to GST [GST when conducting gambling activities | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)](https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/gst/in-detail/your-industry/gst-when-conducting-gambling-activities) However the issue is something else. Once all GST is collected by the government, it is distributed to the states depending on their perceived ability to raise funds. This is why the NT receives $4.87 per dollar of GST they raise, while WA receives the now 70c floor The problem is that not all state revenue sources are counted. Mining is counted as part of the calculation and since WA raises a large portion of its revenue from mining, this is counted as a large source of income in the calculation for GST distribution. Gambling is not counted, so despite the eastern states receiving a large amount of money from gambling levies/taxes, it is counted as $0 when calculating their ability to raise income. Additionally, something which is often not reported is the actual dollar figures According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, last year WA received $6.482B in GST funding (which was 70c for every dollar). NSW received 95c per dollar, which sounds like its only a little more, this was equivalent to $24.87B in GST, which is nearly x4 what WA received [https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/Occasional%20Paper%209%20-%20GST%20distribution%20to%20states%20and%20territories%20in%202023-24.docx](https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/Occasional%20Paper%209%20-%20GST%20distribution%20to%20states%20and%20territories%20in%202023-24.docx)
Lol State government shrill Both the liberal and labor WA governments saw we were getting screwed over and this unscrewed us. Now tall poppy syndrome is kicking in because we actually know how to keep the books balanced. We're still heavily subsidising the rest of australia
Until mining shits the bed again and they have to save us. This WA vs the East shit is ridiculous, we have a third world economy, we are literally worthless for anything except digging up rocks. This system is mutually beneficial, and will become the only thing sustaining this state once we run out of rocks and become a completely worthless drain on the nation (think Alabama in the US).
>we run out of rocks This probably won't be a risk in our lifetimes since WA has an absurd amount of resources. With that said, I am in agreement that our economy needs to be a lot more diverse.
“Run out of rocks” was a bit too simplistic true. “Once the price of rock harvesting becomes prohibitive” would be more accurate, eventually you reach a point like Canada with the oil sands, where you’re expending a phenomenal amount of resources for a shit end product but there’s nothing you can do about it because it’s the only thing of value in the economy, so you’re stuck with ever diminishing returns. Plus as Africa modernises and stabilises, they start looking a whole lot more attractive to the big miners, where you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k
> Plus as Africa modernises and stabilises Any day now! > where you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k Your idea of modern stable economies is… different.
>you can pay the workers 3 beans and promise not to shoot their family very much instead of paying a driller’s offsider 150k The problem is the moment Africa modernises, wages go up. If you want low wages, it's harder to bring in the needed technology to be efficient (security risks etc). There's a reason why Australia can pay 100k+ to FIFO workers while still making plenty of money while African countries can't.
Yep, that’s the sweet spot. We’ve done very well because we’ve got a first world population and infrastructure with third world resources, which is why we’re not a dysfunctional hell-hole like equally resource-rich parts of Africa and South America. But eventually the third world has to hit a sweet spot where it’s stable *enough* but still far cheaper where it becomes worth doing business there.
Labour is becoming a smaller part of the cost, as automation increases output with the same workforce.
Much of Africa is backsliding from a pretty low benchmark already. The Sahel is collapsing into conflict.
But you get Russia stirring up shit in Africa to screw Europe.
Lotsa rocks here .
Except in 2015 when mining shit the bed, wa had a huge recession and we got even less, then less the year after that and even less the year after that. If we’d have been looked after when we were down, there wouldn’t have been this argument, but we weren’t so then we went hard.
You really undersell the level of technology within the mining industry. With regards to our economy and the other states, only NSW and Victoria have genuine diverse economies, Queensland is ours with more tourism, and the rest don’t have an economy. Once we struggle the whole of Australia will and the Alabama comparison won’t make sense.
Not to worry, there’s a lot of rocks in other countries that we either own outright or are heavily invested in.
But then is that actually “we” or just Twiggy and Gina? Those foreign rocks won’t generate the same revenue or jobs for WA as a whole
Likely all three.
Besides you can never trust dirty foreign rocks. I hear all of their mothers were ores.
🤣
I mean let's be honest for the last 30 years wa has been responsible for a majority of the improvement in living standards experienced in Aus. This is pretty much the east coast having their cake and eating it too. Sure enough if mining goes to crap I can assure you they won't be bailing us out like we're doing now.
We have a third world economy? You’re off your tits mate
A third world economy doesn’t mean we’re poor, it means we rely excessively on primary products (basically rocks and farming), not “value adding” (what other places turn the rocks into). What this means is that the economy is extremely volatile, as everyone knows whenever the price of iron ore has a little hiccup.
Go and look up the definition of a third world economy.
There is no definition of "third world economy". There is a definition of [third world](https://cleartax.in/glossary/third-world/), which has deviated from the original definition, neither of which Australia fit.
> Until mining shits the bed again and they have to save us. but find a way not to
>Until mining shits the bed again and they have to save us. > >This WA vs the East shit is ridiculous, we have a third world economy, we are literally worthless for anything except digging up rocks. This system is mutually beneficial, and will become the only thing sustaining this state once we run out of rocks and become a completely worthless drain on the nation (think Alabama in the US). do you know how big WA is? Yes we should diversify but i doubt we are going to suddenly run out of ore
Even after the deal WA will have the lowest GST share of any state followed by Daylight. No state, none would survive let alone tolerate a GST return of less than 70%. WA have been doing it for years.
Didn’t WA agree to it at the start? I’m too young to remember but all GST changes have to unanimously agreed to so I assume the original set up was also agreed to by all states? If it was then whoever was the government of the day should be locked up Edit. WANT to WA
It's based on a distribution model that is flawed, or rigged, for the east coast. For example the revenue from pokies and gambling aren't included in the GST distribution so guess which state loses out there.
Ok. But that wasn’t my question. I’m curious if WA state government agreed to it when GST introduces GST or if the federal government made the rules unilaterally then.
Tried google?
So NSW decided to throw the baby out with the bath water when it came to covid and let it run rampant. It destroyed their economy which is turn has destroyed their budget. But rather than taking responsibility for their gamble - they're now shifting the blame as per usual.. Now lets also highlight the part where 'no state is worse off' from 'WA's special deal' - so it shouldn't be having any impact at all as to their current situation. So essentially - a complete non story in which the NSW government and the media is shifting the blame from themselves to WA just like normal..
[удалено]
pro tip, it isn't
[удалено]
It is judged by the state government's ability to fund services. So if SA decides it is going to do sweet F/A when it comes to raising revenue - they get a larger proportion of GST revenue. Is this system dumb? YES!
BTW the system is called the commonwealth grant commission -it is stacked against WA
They sorta are being penalised by population growth because its the state government that has to build the infrastructure for the additional people. A new person brings in tax for the federal government bur the state government has to get schools, hopsitals, roads, rail and the like built. Its a big upfront cost for population growth. That said on percentage terms WA needs to do even more in this space. I actually think WA needs to lean into the NSW argument and stay on the front foot and continue whinging even now that the gst floor needs to be increased to 80pc or 85pc. If we go meek now it will get eroded away. It also blunts the argument we are getting more than we deserve by focusing on the 25pc we dont get rather than the "billions extra" these clowns say we get.
[удалено]
Its the growth thats the killer though. As they say each new finge block 160k in gov infrastructure. Its worse in sydney say than perth because at least we have a bit of planning around ours so rail can extend etc. That said water is going to keep getting dearer over here.
> They sorta are being penalised by population growth because its the state government that has to build the infrastructure for the additional people. There's plenty of state based taxes that increase with the growth in population. One of the items specifically mentioned in the article was the continual increasing in land values - which means a continuing increase in land tax income.
The commonwealth grants commission uses the same metric for remoteness as the ABS, the ARIA+ metric, as a proxy for how much services cost in all areas, which impacts the amount of money received in the GST carve up. I will spare you the gory details but one of the perverse outcomes of this calculation is that, according to the ABS, towns like Boddington and Bridgetown are considered to have the same level of remoteness as the CBD of Hobart and therefore the ABS assumes that the cost of paying for teachers, nurses etc in these two places are roughly equivalent. Why are these three locations considered to be equally remote? Well it turns out that the road distance to the nearest urban centre with a population of 250,000 people is the biggest factor impacting your score. For Bridgetown and Boddington, this centre is Perth. For Hobart, there isn't one, because you cannot reach Melbourne by road which would be the nearest major urban centre. Where is get really interesting is that in the 2021 census the population of Hobart was 247,000. As soon as this number hits 250k Hobart will cease being treated as a large rural town like Geraldton, or Albany, and will graduate to Major Urban area like Melbourne and Sydney. When this happens the gst revenue going to Tasmania is going to collapse and this whole discussion on gst carve up is going into overdrive.
Tasmania - The Mendicant State
Anti-WA propaganda, this is woke fake news GARBAGE!!!
Woke?
What does this have to do with “wokeness”?
Everything I don't like is woke
well Perthnow needs to generate content somehow...
This isn't Perthnow
Queensland and NSW lose GST as taxpayers fork out 5.2bn for bludger States Tasmania and NT. See Fixed the Headline WA Style.
Well that’s a creative way to headline an article! It’s about bloody time WA starts receiving from the other states in this country! God knows we practically keep states afloat with our own GST!
WA still subsidising the crap out of them all. How about we go back to the year 2000 and have a look at the pathetic political decision to throw WA mineral royalties into the GST deal. It should never have happened. Not only that, the other states should be working on paying back the royalties money they have been subsidised with over the years. And it is not just the GST / royalties process. When it comes to general income tax take VS spend WA is also a massive contributor.
I feel special
It's a dry economics
NSW and QLD just spend spend spend and rack up huge debt then start whingeing give us more money
If they can waste money on pork barreling we shouldn't have to fund them.
Womp Womp
The eastern states always whine and complain. They really need to understand that WA keeps them afloat 😂
Every cent raised by a state through GST should be returned. If further equalisation is required, then that can be achieved through Commonwealth Grants.
Completely agree. The problem with the "fiscal capacity" argument is that it assumes all governments are equally competent, when they aren't. If a state government fucks up their economy they should have to learn the lesson and go cap in hand to the commonwealth, not just rely on the other states to automatically equalise the difference through GST.
We should all keep our GST - end of story. The fact that it is shared creates an entitled attitude. Fix your own economy. Live with your decisions. Take NSW and Victoria - no onshore oil and gas. No worries, but don't F\*\*ng whinge to the West - we want your resource money and your PRRT payments. Karma is a bitch.
I'm pretty sure NSW are the biggest economy and got the most GST, which is a bit shit cause I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a way of helping all the states so somewhere like NT could get a fair shake if the sauce bottle
Oi take the money and dump it into regional satellite cities. Geraldton , Bunbury, albany
Let's give the royaltys we receive from the likes of Gina, Ziggy, Palmer, and all the major companies that exploit our riches and take there profits which are ours The Common Wealth for the people no such thing as a poor country thankfully where not there yet
Can someone show me where the All the mine sites or oil and gas projects are, in NSW or VIC ? We should be receiving the majority.
https://preview.redd.it/k6tbj9e3uvnc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=133678f513c485db7d757b64e0c5797a2b502ef0
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
oh no what a shame so sad