10 ms·

Aus Government will block overseas websites that refuse to collect GST

43 points by caf 10y ago

bootload 10y ago
"New regulations, announced in 2015 and to be implemented from July 2017, require overseas businesses with an Australian annual turnover of $75,000 or more to collect GST on all goods, including those under the current $1000 low-value threshold " It's not the fact the Aus government collecting tax is bad, remember Apple, Google and a slew of other companies are recognised corporate tax cheats, it's the fact this legislation can be used as a tool to ^ban^ more of the Internet.
- tnicks 10y ago
  >"...remember Apple, Google and a slew of other companies are recognised corporate tax cheats..." I fail to see how one can make this assertion without any citations. Apple has paid over 19B in tax expenses in 2015 [1]. Alphabet(Google) has paid over 3B[2]. No other company I could find came remotely close to Apple's level. For some perspective, their tax expense is greater than 44% of the world's countries GDPs[3]. If one reads the definition of tax cheat at Investopedia[4] it does not apply to Apple nor Google. You may not like those companies and you may not believe that they pay enough in taxes but this does not connote that they are "recognized tax cheats". [1]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL [2]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/financials?p=GOOG https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/financials?p=GOOG [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [4]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-cheat.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-cheat.asp
  - imron 10y ago
    I'm sure the GP was talking in reference to the amount of tax those companies paid on their Australian business. See for example here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million-tax-bill-is-a-fraction-of-its-almost-8-billion-revenue-20160126-gmej0z.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million... Google, Microsoft and others are in a similar position. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/google-apple-and-microsoft-defend-tax-set-up-that-shifts-revenue-offshore https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/googl...
  - bootload 10y ago
    "I fail to see how one can make this assertion without any citations." The truth shall set you free. * http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporate_Tax_Avoidance http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena... In the past, a multinational company with a branch in Australia had a local board that was tasked with maximizing profits. But increasingly, Australian operations of multinational companies are becoming agents, shifting revenue offshore specifically to minimize Australian profits. This was evident throughout the inquiry. The American headquartered technology companies run their Australian operations as marketing and distribution companies and shift revenue earned in Australia to other jurisdictions. The legitimacy of these transfers will continue to be a focus of the inquiry. source: "Executive Summary: Background to the interim report" ~ http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporate_Tax_Avoidance/Report%20part%201/b01 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena... and more reporting. * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tech-giants-deny-australian-tax-avoidance/6379062 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tech-giants-deny-austr... * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/google-apple-microsoft-deny-tax-avoidance-senate-inquiry/6379024 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/google-apple-microsoft... * http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-tax-inquiry-google-apple-microsoft-policies-highlight-golden-days-of-tax-laxness-20150410-1mi9k9.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate... * http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystream/corporate-tax-crackdown-hockey-rules-out-google-tax http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystream/corporate-tax-crackdo... * http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/07/big-business-set-face-senate-tax-avoidance-inquiry http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/07/big-business-s... * http://taxwatch.org.au/2014/page/18/ http://taxwatch.org.au/2014/page/18/
andrewstuart 10y ago
"It's critical to understand that the website blocking capability will only ever be used to prevent the worst crimes. It's definitely NOT the thin end of the wedge." - some luddite politician prior to legislation requiring blocking technology
doctorwho 10y ago
Australian use of VPNs is about to skyrocket!
- imron 10y ago
  Nah, it's already pretty high thanks to Netflix and similar.
cyberferret 10y ago
They want companies in every other country outside of Australia to collect and remit tax to the Australian Tax Office?? Good luck with that! Imagine trying to get Sven's Online Yak-hair Mocassins in Norway to complete a quarterly BAS. Surprised they are not focusing on LOCAL Aussie ecommerce sites that don't collect and remit GST for local sales.
- robryan 10y ago
  That's the easy part though. Australian sellers who ship from overseas would be committing tax fraud not to start collecting GST on these sales.
- asdfaoeu 10y ago
  > Surprised they are not focusing on LOCAL Aussie ecommerce sites that don't collect and remit GST for local sales. Like?
  - sjwright 10y ago
    One example is Kogan, who claims the sale occurs in Hong Kong. https://www.kogan.com/au/help/import-duties-and-gst/ https://www.kogan.com/au/help/import-duties-and-gst/
  - cyberferret 10y ago
    Most subscription based SaaS services for instance. You usually have a single price advertised for your monthly revenue. Most customers are just an email address, not a physical address. It's a tough call to look at your monthly Stripe payments and try and work out who is a local customer and who is overseas. I know this from hard experience. We have to cross refer the Stripe info across to our user database where we have an 'Office Location' field used in the app itself (for other purposes) to try and work it out. Messy. But without that, it is a wild stab in the dark. I am willing to bet that most AU SaaS businesses are either claiming all their sales are from overseas, or just estimating a %age of Australian customers to fill out their BAS figures.
    - 10y ago
mkj 10y ago
It seems unlikely it'd actually get implemented.
- Untit1ed 10y ago
  That's what we thought about metadata retention
King-Aaron 10y ago
Correction: Australian government will attempt to restrict IP addresses of certain sellers when a large, party-supporting local retailer submits a complaint about them. (I.E. Gerry Harvey)
adrianratnapala 10y ago
Can someone who knows about tax law explain what the scope of the GST is with regards to imports? I.e. how big of a deal is this? Does everyone who sells items to Australian purchasers have to pay GST? Or is the GST only applied for some corner cases where, (for example) Australians sell stuff to each other, but involve an oversees leg in the deal? (Edit: this is of course a seperate issue from how blocking capabilities can be abused in future...)
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  It is just a national 10% sales tax.
- caf 10y ago
  The current situation is that you are required to register and remit GST if you make AUD$75,000 worth of GST-taxable supplies "connected with Australia". This fairly lengthy ruling speaks to what falls under that term: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=GST/GSTR200031/NAT/ATO/00001 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=GST/GSTR20003... Currently items under AUD$1000 which aren't alcohol or "bulk orders" are "low-value imports" and aren't taxed, so they don't count in the $75,000 threshold. This is one of the things that's changing in July 2017 - the removal of the low-value threshold. In the current system, if you directly ship goods from outside Australia to the end-customer in Australia it is deemed that the customer is the one that's importing it, and therefore the one responsible for the GST (they're supposed to pay it to Customs). It's not a "supply connected with Australia" and doesn't count in the $75,000 threshold. It sounds like this last provision is changing as well but it's actually hard to find the details on this. There's just high-level descriptions like http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_revenue-10.htm http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_revenu... .
Mao_Zedang 10y ago
Australian companies when selling to the EU have to collect and pay VAT. This seem only fair that those same EU retailers now must collect and pay GST? It would make more sense if they just banned the stores ability to remit funds via the VISA/Mastercard (etc) networks.
- kbart 10y ago
  "Australian companies when selling to the EU have to collect and pay VAT." Unless there's a special deal between Aus and EU I've never heard of, then no. If you bought goods from outside EU, you pay VAT and import taxes (if applicable) at the customs. "If you buy goods for the purposes of your business from a supplier based outside the EU, you must generally pay VAT at the point of import"[1] 1. http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/cross-border/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/cross-borde...
  - Mao_Zedang 10y ago
    Consumers arent businesses. You are wrong. https://quaderno.io/blog/what-you-must-know-about-vat-if-you-have-customers-in-europe/ https://quaderno.io/blog/what-you-must-know-about-vat-if-you...
    - kbart 10y ago
      No, your link only talks about digital goods, that are exemptions. Of course, you can't pay VAT for digital goods (subscriptions, ebooks, mp3 etc.) on arrival, because there's no shipping and thus customs are avoided, so VAT must be included in sale's price. Here's information regarding buying from non-EU countries for individuals[1] and it clearly states: "As soon as you buy a product from a non-EU country, then effectively you become an importer and become liable to Customs and Excise Duty as well as Value Added Tax (VAT) payments." 1. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/buying-goods-services-online-personal-use/buying-goods/buying-goods-online-coming-from-a-noneu-union-country_en https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/buying-goo...
crdb 10y ago
For those who think this is addressing a relatively small problem, one of the major Australian banks analysed [1] the accounts of 1 million of its customers (1 in 22 Australians) in 2011 and found that 74% of e-commerce by revenue was cross-border. Three quarters! In some markets, over 90% of the revenue was from abroad. It's not just fashion and cosmetics, things like lawn mowers were also getting imported. Part of the problem was AUD appreciation which put the MSRP of most things a good 50% above the rest of the world. Coupled with high costs in Australia (due to tight labour legislation which helps sustain an egalitarian culture), no Australian retailer could compete. The AUD has weakened substantially since then so I wonder if the picture has changed enough to make GST matter. Charging GST might help a little bit, but the issue is FX, high local costs, and relatively cheap international shipping. For example, ASOS offers free international shipping so long as you are ready to wait 4 weeks. This is fine with most customers who prefer buying the same jeans for $60 and wait to paying twice as much and having them instantly. They employ only a handful of people in Australia to manage inbound shipments and customs, but it is (was, 3 years ago when I last looked) a significant chunk of their global profits. That being said, protectionism didn't work out for the Australian car industry. [1] http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13debf3b-701e335e5cad/Onlineretaildata-28-Jul-2011-0008-1.pdf http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13de...
- pirocks 10y ago
  working link: http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13debf3b-701e335e5cad/Onlineretaildata-28-Jul-2011-0008-1.pdf http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13de...
- broodbucket 10y ago
  FYI your link got messed up by a space, might want to edit it
  - crdb 10y ago
    Thanks, done.
- manicdee 10y ago
snovv_crash 10y ago
What about just charging customs fees like everyone else in the world?
- retrogradeorbit 10y ago
  They originally were doing that but the volume of imports was so high they couldn't deal with the processing back log. Then they moved to only charging GST on imports over $1000 AUD. That actually worked really well. Then they got greedy. And were pushed by powerful retail owners to do something. The whole thing is ridiculous because there are far bigger fish escaping the frying pan that they just ignore. Like the whole negative gearing property issue. They don't touch that massive tax hole because the individual politicians themselves are making huge coin off it.
leohutson 10y ago
Would be smarter to just remove GST from goods that are commonly imported altogether. Could offset the lost revenue with non-renewable energy taxes, land value taxes, capital gains taxes.
- tempestn 10y ago
  It's my understanding that a sales tax is one of the better revenue sources from a fiscal policy perspective. Its primary downside is the difficulty of collection, but otherwise the incentives are good. On the other hand, something like a capital gains tax discourages investment. (Not saying that shouldn't exist, just that it's not clear it's superior to a GST.)
tempestn 10y ago
Here in Canada, anything that exceeds the low value item exemption (which is ridiculously low at $20) gets taxed at the border when it enters the country. This is a pain, yes, but at least you're still able to buy whatever overseas goods you want. The Australian solution seems.. illogical at best. Savvy buyers can just work around the blocks, but others will be left without goods that they could have otherwise purchased, albeit with a bit of a delay. Obviously the goal is to coerce sites into collecting the taxes to keep the business, but surely that could be done within the existing system, without bringing internet censorship into it. For instance, they could de-prioritize processing of shipments where taxes weren't collected, giving companies an incentive to comply (since they would have an advantage in shipping time over competitors who don't). This approach seems unnecessarily heavy-handed.
feralmoan 10y ago
Australia takes Howards doctrine of 'punching above it's weight' and without any meaningful leadership just punches itself in the face. Seriously Straya, why are you punching yourself? Why are you punching yourself? HAHAHAH... Why are you punching yourself? Why are you punching yourself?
- shermanyo 10y ago
  As a citizen watching those in charge, it feels more like I'm the embarrassed child at a bbq watching our drunk dad slur something racist about the neighbours, take a swing at his brother in law for something he misheard, trip over his thongs and spill beer all over his pants.
  - feralmoan 10y ago
    Australians have mastered the art of crab mentality. Dodge those pincers.
ramblenode 10y ago
Given how large the e-commerce market is and how high the sales tax is, I'm sure a substantial black market will form around avoiding this tax. Privacy concerns may not be enough to motivate people to use VPNs or proxies but hit their pocketbooks and I'm sure the use of these tools will take off. The black market infrastructure that shields the origin of these goods will also shield fraudulent merchants from consumer challenges and regulators. I imagine it will also give cover to narcotics and other illegal goods by conflating the purchasing behavior of law-abiding and criminal buyers and also the behavior of merchants.

43 points by caf 10y ago

"New regulations, announced in 2015 and to be implemented from July 2017, require overseas businesses with an Australian annual turnover of $75,000 or more to collect GST on all goods, including those under the current $1000 low-value threshold " It's not the fact the Aus government collecting tax is bad, remember Apple, Google and a slew of other companies are recognised corporate tax cheats, it's the fact this legislation can be used as a tool to ^ban^ more of the Internet.

tnicks 10y ago
>"...remember Apple, Google and a slew of other companies are recognised corporate tax cheats..." I fail to see how one can make this assertion without any citations. Apple has paid over 19B in tax expenses in 2015 [1]. Alphabet(Google) has paid over 3B[2]. No other company I could find came remotely close to Apple's level. For some perspective, their tax expense is greater than 44% of the world's countries GDPs[3]. If one reads the definition of tax cheat at Investopedia[4] it does not apply to Apple nor Google. You may not like those companies and you may not believe that they pay enough in taxes but this does not connote that they are "recognized tax cheats". [1]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL [2]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/financials?p=GOOG https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/financials?p=GOOG [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [4]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-cheat.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-cheat.asp
- imron 10y ago
  I'm sure the GP was talking in reference to the amount of tax those companies paid on their Australian business. See for example here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million-tax-bill-is-a-fraction-of-its-almost-8-billion-revenue-20160126-gmej0z.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million... Google, Microsoft and others are in a similar position. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/google-apple-and-microsoft-defend-tax-set-up-that-shifts-revenue-offshore https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/googl...
- bootload 10y ago
  "I fail to see how one can make this assertion without any citations." The truth shall set you free. * http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporate_Tax_Avoidance http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena... In the past, a multinational company with a branch in Australia had a local board that was tasked with maximizing profits. But increasingly, Australian operations of multinational companies are becoming agents, shifting revenue offshore specifically to minimize Australian profits. This was evident throughout the inquiry. The American headquartered technology companies run their Australian operations as marketing and distribution companies and shift revenue earned in Australia to other jurisdictions. The legitimacy of these transfers will continue to be a focus of the inquiry. source: "Executive Summary: Background to the interim report" ~ http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporate_Tax_Avoidance/Report%20part%201/b01 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena... and more reporting. * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tech-giants-deny-australian-tax-avoidance/6379062 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tech-giants-deny-austr... * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/google-apple-microsoft-deny-tax-avoidance-senate-inquiry/6379024 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/google-apple-microsoft... * http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-tax-inquiry-google-apple-microsoft-policies-highlight-golden-days-of-tax-laxness-20150410-1mi9k9.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate... * http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystream/corporate-tax-crackdown-hockey-rules-out-google-tax http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystream/corporate-tax-crackdo... * http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/07/big-business-set-face-senate-tax-avoidance-inquiry http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/07/big-business-s... * http://taxwatch.org.au/2014/page/18/ http://taxwatch.org.au/2014/page/18/

andrewstuart 10y ago

"It's critical to understand that the website blocking capability will only ever be used to prevent the worst crimes. It's definitely NOT the thin end of the wedge." - some luddite politician prior to legislation requiring blocking technology

doctorwho 10y ago

Australian use of VPNs is about to skyrocket!

imron 10y ago
Nah, it's already pretty high thanks to Netflix and similar.

cyberferret 10y ago

They want companies in every other country outside of Australia to collect and remit tax to the Australian Tax Office?? Good luck with that! Imagine trying to get Sven's Online Yak-hair Mocassins in Norway to complete a quarterly BAS. Surprised they are not focusing on LOCAL Aussie ecommerce sites that don't collect and remit GST for local sales.

robryan 10y ago
That's the easy part though. Australian sellers who ship from overseas would be committing tax fraud not to start collecting GST on these sales.
asdfaoeu 10y ago
> Surprised they are not focusing on LOCAL Aussie ecommerce sites that don't collect and remit GST for local sales. Like?
- sjwright 10y ago
  One example is Kogan, who claims the sale occurs in Hong Kong. https://www.kogan.com/au/help/import-duties-and-gst/ https://www.kogan.com/au/help/import-duties-and-gst/
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Most subscription based SaaS services for instance. You usually have a single price advertised for your monthly revenue. Most customers are just an email address, not a physical address. It's a tough call to look at your monthly Stripe payments and try and work out who is a local customer and who is overseas. I know this from hard experience. We have to cross refer the Stripe info across to our user database where we have an 'Office Location' field used in the app itself (for other purposes) to try and work it out. Messy. But without that, it is a wild stab in the dark. I am willing to bet that most AU SaaS businesses are either claiming all their sales are from overseas, or just estimating a %age of Australian customers to fill out their BAS figures.
  - 10y ago

mkj 10y ago

It seems unlikely it'd actually get implemented.

Untit1ed 10y ago
That's what we thought about metadata retention

King-Aaron 10y ago

Correction: Australian government will attempt to restrict IP addresses of certain sellers when a large, party-supporting local retailer submits a complaint about them. (I.E. Gerry Harvey)

adrianratnapala 10y ago

Can someone who knows about tax law explain what the scope of the GST is with regards to imports? I.e. how big of a deal is this? Does everyone who sells items to Australian purchasers have to pay GST? Or is the GST only applied for some corner cases where, (for example) Australians sell stuff to each other, but involve an oversees leg in the deal? (Edit: this is of course a seperate issue from how blocking capabilities can be abused in future...)

Mao_Zedang 10y ago
It is just a national 10% sales tax.
caf 10y ago
The current situation is that you are required to register and remit GST if you make AUD$75,000 worth of GST-taxable supplies "connected with Australia". This fairly lengthy ruling speaks to what falls under that term: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=GST/GSTR200031/NAT/ATO/00001 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=GST/GSTR20003... Currently items under AUD$1000 which aren't alcohol or "bulk orders" are "low-value imports" and aren't taxed, so they don't count in the $75,000 threshold. This is one of the things that's changing in July 2017 - the removal of the low-value threshold. In the current system, if you directly ship goods from outside Australia to the end-customer in Australia it is deemed that the customer is the one that's importing it, and therefore the one responsible for the GST (they're supposed to pay it to Customs). It's not a "supply connected with Australia" and doesn't count in the $75,000 threshold. It sounds like this last provision is changing as well but it's actually hard to find the details on this. There's just high-level descriptions like http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_revenue-10.htm http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_revenu... .

Mao_Zedang 10y ago

Australian companies when selling to the EU have to collect and pay VAT. This seem only fair that those same EU retailers now must collect and pay GST? It would make more sense if they just banned the stores ability to remit funds via the VISA/Mastercard (etc) networks.

kbart 10y ago
"Australian companies when selling to the EU have to collect and pay VAT." Unless there's a special deal between Aus and EU I've never heard of, then no. If you bought goods from outside EU, you pay VAT and import taxes (if applicable) at the customs. "If you buy goods for the purposes of your business from a supplier based outside the EU, you must generally pay VAT at the point of import"[1] 1. http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/cross-border/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/cross-borde...
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  Consumers arent businesses. You are wrong. https://quaderno.io/blog/what-you-must-know-about-vat-if-you-have-customers-in-europe/ https://quaderno.io/blog/what-you-must-know-about-vat-if-you...
  - kbart 10y ago
    No, your link only talks about digital goods, that are exemptions. Of course, you can't pay VAT for digital goods (subscriptions, ebooks, mp3 etc.) on arrival, because there's no shipping and thus customs are avoided, so VAT must be included in sale's price. Here's information regarding buying from non-EU countries for individuals[1] and it clearly states: "As soon as you buy a product from a non-EU country, then effectively you become an importer and become liable to Customs and Excise Duty as well as Value Added Tax (VAT) payments." 1. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/buying-goods-services-online-personal-use/buying-goods/buying-goods-online-coming-from-a-noneu-union-country_en https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/buying-goo...

crdb 10y ago

For those who think this is addressing a relatively small problem, one of the major Australian banks analysed [1] the accounts of 1 million of its customers (1 in 22 Australians) in 2011 and found that 74% of e-commerce by revenue was cross-border. Three quarters! In some markets, over 90% of the revenue was from abroad. It's not just fashion and cosmetics, things like lawn mowers were also getting imported. Part of the problem was AUD appreciation which put the MSRP of most things a good 50% above the rest of the world. Coupled with high costs in Australia (due to tight labour legislation which helps sustain an egalitarian culture), no Australian retailer could compete. The AUD has weakened substantially since then so I wonder if the picture has changed enough to make GST matter. Charging GST might help a little bit, but the issue is FX, high local costs, and relatively cheap international shipping. For example, ASOS offers free international shipping so long as you are ready to wait 4 weeks. This is fine with most customers who prefer buying the same jeans for $60 and wait to paying twice as much and having them instantly. They employ only a handful of people in Australia to manage inbound shipments and customs, but it is (was, 3 years ago when I last looked) a significant chunk of their global profits. That being said, protectionism didn't work out for the Australian car industry. [1] http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13debf3b-701e335e5cad/Onlineretaildata-28-Jul-2011-0008-1.pdf http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13de...

pirocks 10y ago
working link: http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13debf3b-701e335e5cad/Onlineretaildata-28-Jul-2011-0008-1.pdf http://globalmarketsresearch.commbank.com.au/ReportWeb/d13de...
broodbucket 10y ago
FYI your link got messed up by a space, might want to edit it
- crdb 10y ago
  Thanks, done.
manicdee 10y ago

snovv_crash 10y ago

What about just charging customs fees like everyone else in the world?

retrogradeorbit 10y ago
They originally were doing that but the volume of imports was so high they couldn't deal with the processing back log. Then they moved to only charging GST on imports over $1000 AUD. That actually worked really well. Then they got greedy. And were pushed by powerful retail owners to do something. The whole thing is ridiculous because there are far bigger fish escaping the frying pan that they just ignore. Like the whole negative gearing property issue. They don't touch that massive tax hole because the individual politicians themselves are making huge coin off it.

leohutson 10y ago

Would be smarter to just remove GST from goods that are commonly imported altogether. Could offset the lost revenue with non-renewable energy taxes, land value taxes, capital gains taxes.

tempestn 10y ago
It's my understanding that a sales tax is one of the better revenue sources from a fiscal policy perspective. Its primary downside is the difficulty of collection, but otherwise the incentives are good. On the other hand, something like a capital gains tax discourages investment. (Not saying that shouldn't exist, just that it's not clear it's superior to a GST.)

tempestn 10y ago

Here in Canada, anything that exceeds the low value item exemption (which is ridiculously low at $20) gets taxed at the border when it enters the country. This is a pain, yes, but at least you're still able to buy whatever overseas goods you want. The Australian solution seems.. illogical at best. Savvy buyers can just work around the blocks, but others will be left without goods that they could have otherwise purchased, albeit with a bit of a delay. Obviously the goal is to coerce sites into collecting the taxes to keep the business, but surely that could be done within the existing system, without bringing internet censorship into it. For instance, they could de-prioritize processing of shipments where taxes weren't collected, giving companies an incentive to comply (since they would have an advantage in shipping time over competitors who don't). This approach seems unnecessarily heavy-handed.

feralmoan 10y ago

Australia takes Howards doctrine of 'punching above it's weight' and without any meaningful leadership just punches itself in the face. Seriously Straya, why are you punching yourself? Why are you punching yourself? HAHAHAH... Why are you punching yourself? Why are you punching yourself?

shermanyo 10y ago
As a citizen watching those in charge, it feels more like I'm the embarrassed child at a bbq watching our drunk dad slur something racist about the neighbours, take a swing at his brother in law for something he misheard, trip over his thongs and spill beer all over his pants.
- feralmoan 10y ago
  Australians have mastered the art of crab mentality. Dodge those pincers.

ramblenode 10y ago

Given how large the e-commerce market is and how high the sales tax is, I'm sure a substantial black market will form around avoiding this tax. Privacy concerns may not be enough to motivate people to use VPNs or proxies but hit their pocketbooks and I'm sure the use of these tools will take off. The black market infrastructure that shields the origin of these goods will also shield fraudulent merchants from consumer challenges and regulators. I imagine it will also give cover to narcotics and other illegal goods by conflating the purchasing behavior of law-abiding and criminal buyers and also the behavior of merchants.