Should Australia reintroduce tarffs for the car industry? Australia’s automotive Industry Is a significant contributor and major employer to the national economy. But the economy Is In crlsls. The greatest problem for the automotive industry is the mindset of the cabinets. Cabinets became downright apoplectic and argue that tax payers should not support a failing industry, and they vehemently combat the automotive industry policy as a matter of principle. The truth is, Australia cannot afford losing its car industry.
Several academic investigations have been conducted about how this industry contributes to national economy, and he answer couldnt be clearer: It would cost Australia more losing Its automotive Industry rather than supporting It so It can grow strong again. Instead of being a dead weight to Australian economy, the automotive industry is a great contributor to it. The Abbot cabinet shouldn’t burden this weakened industry with tariffs that will ultimately lead it to its doom; instead, it should invest more in it, understanding its real value and accepting that it hasnt received enough attention.
The government focuses more on primary production, like cattle, mining or grains; little Is left for ransforming Industries Ilke the automotive one. Australia should Improve what It has to offer to Investors, since It’s facing a hard competition from other countries. If the automotive industry were to collapse, it’s clear that other industries would follow it as well. Can you give examples of current tarffs, subsidies or quotas applied by the Australian Government? Do you agree with the Imposition of these tarffs, subsidies and quotas? Australia applies several tariffs on a wide variety of trading goods.
For example: Instruments, weapons and manufactured articles have a 1% tariff; dairy roduce, natural honey, birds’ eggs and other edible products of animal origin that aren’t specified elsewhere (in the tariff establishment table) have a 0. 17% tariff; glass and glassware have a 2. 8125% tariff. Still, most Australia’s customs and tariffs are lower than the global average. Regarding subsidies, the Australian government applies rates on several ambits, like home care, oxygen and enteral feeding or residential respite – and this Is only about healthcare.
To be honest, Australia has a balanced taxing system, with rates that are internationally lower than other countries’ ates; besides, there exists a real need for a tax system for the government to have enough resources to ensure a decent lifestyle for its citizens and to provide them with the basic human needs. Leaving aside rates like those meant to regulate industries like the automotive one, it seems that Australia has a fair economic system, not meant for crippling the citizen’s economy, but rather to ensure that all the people’s resources paid In the form In taxes contribute to the general wellbeing.
Who do you think are the winners / losers from such protectionist measures? Ultimately, the citizens are the most benefited or prejudiced by these taxes and subsidies. As it has been said before, Australia’s rates and tariffs are significantly lower wnen compared to tnose tnat otner countrles apply; ana tne Income tnat results from these said payments should be applied on new infrastructure, on attending the people’s needs, and on ensuring that unforeseen disasters will be properly faced and answered.
This is the ideal system of taxing and applying tariffs: for the countrys money to serve the countrys needs. Still, applying additional taxes to ndustries or basic services is often unfair, especially when those new rates are derived from political affairs; taking the example of the automotive industry, it seems more of a political movement than an economy issue.
Thus, applying this kind of taxes only results in weakening the overall economy, which will result in affecting the citizens in general. Nothing good can come from crippling the economic system of a country by attacking the principal sectors that contribute to it; it can be said that Australia is attacking itself when it aims to weigh new taxes on an industry that should be saved instead of being combatted.