>From (on-line, daily) ABC News Wednesday February 3, 1999 GST won't change economy, says professor The Senate inquiry into a goods and services tax (GST) has been told the new tax will have little effect on the long-term running of the economy. Economic modelling presented to the inquiry has canvassed a range of options on a GST. The report, by Monash University Professor Peter Dixon, was commissioned by the Senate committee. He warns job creation could be stifled if workers push for higher wages to compensate for the expected rise in inflation. "I think in the long run it will have very little impact," he said. "In the short run the impact will depend very much on how wage earners view the package." Professor Dixon says while tax reform will benefit most exporters it will harm tourism unless packaged tours are given an exemption. He also says taking food out of the package would create an additional 8,000 jobs. Overall he sees no evidence to suggest the GST will reap the Government any more revenue than it has now. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ So -what's the point in having it then? It's not difficult to see the link with the IMF urging Aus. government to attack trade union power (Fin Rev article, 3/2/99) . As if they wouldn't! And who's running this country anyway? So, we'll end up with inflation after GST unless the union power is curbed/destroyed. If one also refers to an article from corp-Focus, Report - posted same day about African countries "opening their economies to foreign investment and adopting the recessionary "structural adjustment" policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)".... and (sic) "conditionalities include: compliance with programs of and obligations to the IMF, joining the World Trade Organization, removing restrictions on foreign investment, minimizing government market interventions, and privatizing many government operations"- (all of which have happened here) - then - consider the response of African labor, consumer, environmental, development, health and human rights groups statement: "These policies tend to undermine local business, drive up unemployment, damage the environment, harm consumers, undermine public health and increase poverty." - and consider what is happening here - isn't it exactly the same & why aren't we fighting harder? and who is the 'enemy', the government and/or IMF? Who/what does IMF represent? (& who 'elected' them anyway?) S.P.
