If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
As I recall, financial services (incl. 'interest') are
either zero rated or exempt from GST. Nett
effect is the same. There is no GST on bank
account-keeping fees.
Maybe something to do with an incestuously
cosy arrangement between governments and
financial institutions!
But I'm not sure if financial institutions can claim
GST on their day-to-day operations. I must ask . . . .
I was thinking of comparing a rental situation with say, a Chainsaw rental shop...
chainsaw = capital item available for rent
residential house = capital item available for rent
Why should they be treated differently, for tax purposes?
(as distinct from for political purposes)
or with say the private sale of an old lawn mower...
private sale = no GST
private purchase = no GST
private seller to GST-registered business buyer = GST claimable by buyer
(there are now rules about the assessable amount)
GST has nothing to do with profit, like income tax.
Incorporated societies and charities can be GST
registered.
1. If it comes out of your pocket, then it's expenditure.
2. If it can go into your pocket, then it's income.
A. If it's paid to the Govt, then it's a tax.
B. If the Govt pays it back to you, then it's a rebate.
easy?
So a tax is not a cost "1" as such in ths case because it more properly belongs in "A".
The reason that tax has it's own group is because the properties of the Govt are such that they have the extra quality of system managment rather than just system user.
In other words , it would not be comparing apples with apples.
1. If it comes out of your pocket, then it's expenditure.
2. If it can go into your pocket, then it's income.
A. If it's paid to the Govt, then it's a tax.
B. If the Govt pays it back to you, then it's a rebate.
easy?
So a tax is not a cost "1" as such in this case because it more properly belongs in "A".
That seems like a bit of circular logic, does it not?
If the payment of tax (A) does not come out of
your pocket (1.) then where does the payment
come from?
I recall hearing the acerbic comment once, that
went something like: Sure, my salary's good.
It's just the take-home pay I can't manage on.
The reason that tax has it's own group is because the properties of the Govt are such that they have the extra quality of system management rather than just system user.
I don't understand that descriptor. However, I may
have some sympathy with the general notion. But
governments are renowned for poor system manage-
ment. Indeed, I suggest that it's only their arrogated
power to take by force that gives them their own 'group.'
Comment