Twila, there would be be a few who would do that but overall it is difficult to avoid paying GST on most goods a person buys.

You may be able to get a job done around the house for "cash" but from my own experience I pay GST on everything that attracts it.

Even if a single pension paid GST of 10% on their full yearly pension they would only pay $2,200 a year and of course they don't.

I was referring to the fact that no pensioner would spend all their pension on goods/services that attract GST .

Here is a list of goods that dont attract GST.  Taken from the taxation office website.

GST and food

Not all food sales involve GST. If you sell food in your business, you need to know which items to charge GST on. Generally, you need to include GST in the price of goods and services you sell or provide. These are called 'taxable sales'.

There are some goods and services which are 'GST-free', meaning you don't have to charge your customer GST and you don't have to pay this GST to the ATO. Most basic food is GST-free.

Examples of 'GST-free' foods are:

bread and bread rolls without icing or fillingcooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixesfats and oils for cookingmilk, cream, cheese and eggsspices and saucesfruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juicebottled drinking watertea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)baby food and infant formulameats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)fruit, vegetables, fish and soupspreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butterbreakfast cerealsrice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).

Radish...I am trying to figure out the point you're hoping  to make but with no success. From  reading your post @  1.41 pm ...I am under the impression that you are not differentiating between Personal Income Tax and the GST ...you seem to be lumping them together.. when they're two different things.

One pays tax on his/her personal income...everyone pays GST on items. Just because a wealthy person pays more GST on luxury items than a person who can afford to buy minimal luxury items....does not mean that the wealthy person is paying his fair share of tax.

Perhaps if I can explain it like this...the wealthy person may have a very clever accountant who can utilise all the loop holes in order to pay less tax...might not even be declaring when he should be declaring...consequently...with the monies "saved" he/she doesn't mind paying GST on luxury items because in effect...he/she has not paid the amount of tax they should have paid in the first place...

The 18,000 marker for paying tax applies to all including the well off. So for everyone the first 18k is tax free, progressive tax system. A pensioner dependent on the pension will spend more percentage wise because of the GST than a salaried person because a greater part of their income is on basics that incur the GST.

The latest budget does nothing to curb or rein in the excesses in super that the well off get and that will outstrip pension costs shortly. Soon it will be 50 billion in lost revenue ! Repeated tax cuts by Howard/Costello in the boom times created the structural deficit that govts are now faced with. Howard had the highest taxing govt while handing out tax cuts and super concessions which is not the contradiction it would appear.

A recent article had 50 millionaires paying zero tax but paying accountants a lot to make sure they paid zero tax. Nice to live in a peaceful country like Australia with good services and pleasant climes but not nice enough to contribute to via income tax it would seem.

The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.

Advertisement

Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.

The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.

The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140513-zr9o3.html

An example of what I was saying above.

I don't know the details of the people you quote , but with the company tax rate being lower than the income tax rate for higher earners most turn themselves into companies and earn tax free dividends if the company has paid tax.. 

I have said for a long time the income tax and company tax should be aligned with a much higher tax free threshold. 

Currently, as with every other Australian resident for tax purposes, there is no taxable income on the first $18,200 earned; 19 per cent on each dollar earned between $18,201 and $37,000; 32.5 per cent on each dollar earned between $37,001 and $80,000; 37 per cent on each dollar earned between $80,001 and $180,000; and, 45 per cent on each dollar earned above $180,000.

The Age Pension costs about $40 billion a year. The tax concessions on superannuation cost about $30 billion a year.

There are two points to note about that super figure. First, it's rising at about 12 per cent a year, far more quickly than almost any other area of government expenditure. Within two years the government will be forgoing about $50 billion in revenue that it would collect if the super system did not exist.

Second, the benefits accrue largely to high income earners. About 40 per cent of super tax concessions are captured by the top 10 per cent of income earners.

Two other contentious policies work in much the same way. According to The Australia Institute, the same top 10 per cent of income earners that capture the lion's share of the benefits of the super system also reap a third of the tax benefits of negative gearing and a huge 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains discount.

http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/the-real-budget-winners-20150513-gh0nns.html

" He cited the example of someone on $200,000 who is forced to take 9 per cent of their income as employer super, and thus gets that income at a 15 per cent rate rather than paying tax in the top bracket. "

15% is not higher tax its a tax concession. 2 + 2 = 4 but I reckon you would get a different result.