Re: [LINK] No dead cats please

[JanW]

At 12:59 PM 22/02/2017, Paul Brooks wrote:
>Google on the other hand has started charging GST, and the billing entity 
>switched
>from Google Ireland to Google Australia.
>Which I probably need to query, as all my Google cloud activity (storage and 
>compute)
>is explicitly directed to European storage locations, and has no connection to
>Australia other than an address for which to send the invoice.

It will be interesting to see what Amazon does. I have a US and an Australian 
account (because I can :) ). Yet they know I'm in Australia, even for my US 
account, and bill me in AUD. Haven't purchased anything in awhile so not sure 
what they'll do. 

Jan


I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jw...@janwhitaker.com
Twitter: JL_Whitaker
Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 

Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become 
prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
~Margaret Atwood, writer 

_ __ _
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] No dead cats please

[Paul Brooks]

The latest Netflix invoice does not include GST, and is billed out of Netflix
International BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Google on the other hand has started charging GST, and the billing entity 
switched
from Google Ireland to Google Australia.
Which I probably need to query, as all my Google cloud activity (storage and 
compute)
is explicitly directed to European storage locations, and has no connection to
Australia other than an address for which to send the invoice.

P.

On 22/02/2017 6:43 AM, Michael Wood wrote:
> When Netflix Australia began they refused to collect GST saying they were
> not an Australian entity. Their pricing was 10% below the other streamers.
> Does anyone know if this is still the case?
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Loosley > wrote:
>> If governments are serious about transforming the public sector,
>> parliaments are going to have to stop throwing dead cats, like Scott
>> Morrison’s new overseas GST bill, over the wall. They create a spaghetti of
>> bespoke business rules that need more bureaucrats, not less, to maintain.
>>
>> By Tom Burton  .. http://www.themandarin.com.au/
>> 75536-tom-burton-no-dead-cats-please
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet another dead cat is about to be thrown over the wall.
>>
>> One of the most frustrating parts of being a public servant is when a
>> minister and the parliament decide to handball a tricky political problem
>> to the bureaucracy to fix. The fix inevitably needs a complicated
>> regulatory patchover and painful execution and resourcing issues to sort
>> out.
>>
>> The poster child example in recent times was when then-communications
>> minister Stephen Conroy decided Australia needed to filter the internet to
>> protect us against baddies and pornographers. Whatever the virtue of the
>> idea, the complexity of systems and compliance processes that would have
>> been needed to come up with anything near effective was nightmarish.
>>
>> In regulator land this is known as the dead cat option, and this week we
>> have a live example with Treasurer Scott Morrison introducing a bill to
>> remove the GST concession for low value goods bought offshore.
>>
>> The big local retailers led by Gerry Harvey have been pushing for years to
>> close down the concession, claiming they want a level playing field with
>> overseas retailers.
>>
>> A concession has existed for decades for goods worth less than $1000, as
>> an administrative device to save Customs (now Border Force) the cost of
>> having to collect duty and GST on low value transactions. These
>> transactions were typically one off purchases by returning travellers —
>> cameras, portable electronic devices and perfumes.
>>
>> With the cost of collection for goods under $1000 typically more than the
>> revenue to be gained the concession was a neat (and popular) fix.
>>
>> Along comes the internet and with it the huge rise in offshore online
>> purchases — much of it driven by the inexplicable, significantly higher
>> cost of buying exactly the same goods locally.
>>
>> For many years the Canberra econocrats resisted changing the concession,
>> arguing it was helping competition in Australia’s notoriously oligopolistic
>> retail sector.
>>
>> It was also noted that no major economy seeks to collect revenue on small
>> value transactions, because of the complexity of collecting and enforcing
>> value-add taxes in external markets.
>>
>> The cost of collection has slowly been coming down and is now estimated at
>> around $60 a transaction. This means that, given a GST of 10%, the
>> government will actually lose money on transactions of less than $600. The
>> average value of internet purchases is estimated to be around $100, but the
>> mode, or most frequent purchase, is around $10. For millennials, buying
>> overseas online is second nature. In my own house a tiny parcel, usually
>> containing an obscure piece of micro computing, arrives every other day.
>>
>> It was this math that recently prompted the US to actually lift the de
>> minimis level from $200 to $800.
>>
>> But in Australia, Harvey and the big retailers finally convinced
>> then-treasurer Joe Hockey and the states to go the other way.
>>
>> The measure was announced in last year’s May election budget and yesterday
>> the ever-assertive Treasurer Scott Morrison proudly introduced the bill. It
>> requires all offshore retailers and/or their re-deliverers who sell
>> anything to an Australian to register for GST and to remit it to the ATO.
>>
>> The measure will raise $130 million a year once underway. Morrison claimed
>> it as a world first. He’s right, no country, even with the encouragement of
>> the OECD, has tried to levy a GST on foreign retailers of goods by
>> registering those businesses in their tax system.
>>
>> For a government that wants to reduce bureaucracy, the bill is a red tape
>> nightmare, with 31 pages of impenetrable amendments. If the devil is in the
>> detail it will defy any 

Re: [LINK] No dead cats please

[Michael Wood]

When Netflix Australia began they refused to collect GST saying they were
not an Australian entity. Their pricing was 10% below the other streamers.
Does anyone know if this is still the case?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Loosley  wrote:

> If governments are serious about transforming the public sector,
> parliaments are going to have to stop throwing dead cats, like Scott
> Morrison’s new overseas GST bill, over the wall. They create a spaghetti of
> bespoke business rules that need more bureaucrats, not less, to maintain.
>
> By Tom Burton  .. http://www.themandarin.com.au/
> 75536-tom-burton-no-dead-cats-please
>
>
>
> Yet another dead cat is about to be thrown over the wall.
>
> One of the most frustrating parts of being a public servant is when a
> minister and the parliament decide to handball a tricky political problem
> to the bureaucracy to fix. The fix inevitably needs a complicated
> regulatory patchover and painful execution and resourcing issues to sort
> out.
>
> The poster child example in recent times was when then-communications
> minister Stephen Conroy decided Australia needed to filter the internet to
> protect us against baddies and pornographers. Whatever the virtue of the
> idea, the complexity of systems and compliance processes that would have
> been needed to come up with anything near effective was nightmarish.
>
> In regulator land this is known as the dead cat option, and this week we
> have a live example with Treasurer Scott Morrison introducing a bill to
> remove the GST concession for low value goods bought offshore.
>
> The big local retailers led by Gerry Harvey have been pushing for years to
> close down the concession, claiming they want a level playing field with
> overseas retailers.
>
> A concession has existed for decades for goods worth less than $1000, as
> an administrative device to save Customs (now Border Force) the cost of
> having to collect duty and GST on low value transactions. These
> transactions were typically one off purchases by returning travellers —
> cameras, portable electronic devices and perfumes.
>
> With the cost of collection for goods under $1000 typically more than the
> revenue to be gained the concession was a neat (and popular) fix.
>
> Along comes the internet and with it the huge rise in offshore online
> purchases — much of it driven by the inexplicable, significantly higher
> cost of buying exactly the same goods locally.
>
> For many years the Canberra econocrats resisted changing the concession,
> arguing it was helping competition in Australia’s notoriously oligopolistic
> retail sector.
>
> It was also noted that no major economy seeks to collect revenue on small
> value transactions, because of the complexity of collecting and enforcing
> value-add taxes in external markets.
>
> The cost of collection has slowly been coming down and is now estimated at
> around $60 a transaction. This means that, given a GST of 10%, the
> government will actually lose money on transactions of less than $600. The
> average value of internet purchases is estimated to be around $100, but the
> mode, or most frequent purchase, is around $10. For millennials, buying
> overseas online is second nature. In my own house a tiny parcel, usually
> containing an obscure piece of micro computing, arrives every other day.
>
> It was this math that recently prompted the US to actually lift the de
> minimis level from $200 to $800.
>
> But in Australia, Harvey and the big retailers finally convinced
> then-treasurer Joe Hockey and the states to go the other way.
>
> The measure was announced in last year’s May election budget and yesterday
> the ever-assertive Treasurer Scott Morrison proudly introduced the bill. It
> requires all offshore retailers and/or their re-deliverers who sell
> anything to an Australian to register for GST and to remit it to the ATO.
>
> The measure will raise $130 million a year once underway. Morrison claimed
> it as a world first. He’s right, no country, even with the encouragement of
> the OECD, has tried to levy a GST on foreign retailers of goods by
> registering those businesses in their tax system.
>
> For a government that wants to reduce bureaucracy, the bill is a red tape
> nightmare, with 31 pages of impenetrable amendments. If the devil is in the
> detail it will defy any intelligent parliamentary scrutiny. Bring back John
> Faulkner, a senator who got across the detail at forensic level.
>
> The bill seeks to target the big e-commerce platforms — Amazon, eBay and
> the looming monster of them all, the Chinese Alibaba. How willing they will
> be to reprogram their business systems and accounting processes to collect
> sales tax for the Australian government is to be seen.
>
> In the case of eBay it will be particularly problematic. eBay is an on
> line bazaar, linking buyers and sellers, but is not a payment platform.
> Each retailer collects direct from the buyer, which means a 

Re: [LINK] No dead cats please

[Fernando Cassia]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Stephen Loosley <
stephenloos...@outlook.com> wrote:

> It was this math that recently prompted the US to actually lift the de
> minimis level from $200 to $800.


Hi Stephen,

I'm interested in this USA angle. Source? / Link? When was this?
Thanks!
FC


-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
Revolucionario
- George Orwell
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] No dead cats please

[Stephen Loosley]

If governments are serious about transforming the public sector, parliaments 
are going to have to stop throwing dead cats, like Scott Morrison’s new 
overseas GST bill, over the wall. They create a spaghetti of bespoke business 
rules that need more bureaucrats, not less, to maintain.

By Tom Burton  .. 
http://www.themandarin.com.au/75536-tom-burton-no-dead-cats-please



Yet another dead cat is about to be thrown over the wall.

One of the most frustrating parts of being a public servant is when a minister 
and the parliament decide to handball a tricky political problem to the 
bureaucracy to fix. The fix inevitably needs a complicated regulatory patchover 
and painful execution and resourcing issues to sort out.

The poster child example in recent times was when then-communications minister 
Stephen Conroy decided Australia needed to filter the internet to protect us 
against baddies and pornographers. Whatever the virtue of the idea, the 
complexity of systems and compliance processes that would have been needed to 
come up with anything near effective was nightmarish.

In regulator land this is known as the dead cat option, and this week we have a 
live example with Treasurer Scott Morrison introducing a bill to remove the GST 
concession for low value goods bought offshore.

The big local retailers led by Gerry Harvey have been pushing for years to 
close down the concession, claiming they want a level playing field with 
overseas retailers.

A concession has existed for decades for goods worth less than $1000, as an 
administrative device to save Customs (now Border Force) the cost of having to 
collect duty and GST on low value transactions. These transactions were 
typically one off purchases by returning travellers — cameras, portable 
electronic devices and perfumes.

With the cost of collection for goods under $1000 typically more than the 
revenue to be gained the concession was a neat (and popular) fix.

Along comes the internet and with it the huge rise in offshore online purchases 
— much of it driven by the inexplicable, significantly higher cost of buying 
exactly the same goods locally.

For many years the Canberra econocrats resisted changing the concession, 
arguing it was helping competition in Australia’s notoriously oligopolistic 
retail sector.

It was also noted that no major economy seeks to collect revenue on small value 
transactions, because of the complexity of collecting and enforcing value-add 
taxes in external markets.

The cost of collection has slowly been coming down and is now estimated at 
around $60 a transaction. This means that, given a GST of 10%, the government 
will actually lose money on transactions of less than $600. The average value 
of internet purchases is estimated to be around $100, but the mode, or most 
frequent purchase, is around $10. For millennials, buying overseas online is 
second nature. In my own house a tiny parcel, usually containing an obscure 
piece of micro computing, arrives every other day.

It was this math that recently prompted the US to actually lift the de minimis 
level from $200 to $800.

But in Australia, Harvey and the big retailers finally convinced then-treasurer 
Joe Hockey and the states to go the other way.

The measure was announced in last year’s May election budget and yesterday the 
ever-assertive Treasurer Scott Morrison proudly introduced the bill. It 
requires all offshore retailers and/or their re-deliverers who sell anything to 
an Australian to register for GST and to remit it to the ATO.

The measure will raise $130 million a year once underway. Morrison claimed it 
as a world first. He’s right, no country, even with the encouragement of the 
OECD, has tried to levy a GST on foreign retailers of goods by registering 
those businesses in their tax system.

For a government that wants to reduce bureaucracy, the bill is a red tape 
nightmare, with 31 pages of impenetrable amendments. If the devil is in the 
detail it will defy any intelligent parliamentary scrutiny. Bring back John 
Faulkner, a senator who got across the detail at forensic level.

The bill seeks to target the big e-commerce platforms — Amazon, eBay and the 
looming monster of them all, the Chinese Alibaba. How willing they will be to 
reprogram their business systems and accounting processes to collect sales tax 
for the Australian government is to be seen.

In the case of eBay it will be particularly problematic. eBay is an on line 
bazaar, linking buyers and sellers, but is not a payment platform. Each 
retailer collects direct from the buyer, which means a Lahore-based online shop 
selling phone charging cords for $8 will need to register with the Australian 
Tax Office and send through the 80 cents when ever they sell to an Aussie. Good 
luck with that one.

If they sell through eBay it will be eBay’s responsibility to identify who the 
end consumer is in Australia, calculate the tax payable, remit the tax to the 
ATO and presumably collect