There’s a pattern setting in: Every time Jim Chalmers says something silly, the Opposition says something even sillier.

For example, Treasurer Chalmers claims we’re “a global leader in how we’re responding to the threat of global warming” and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor accuses the government “of being too focused on long-term issues rather than worrying about cost-of-living pressures”.

For another example, in the shadows of the Intergenerational Report’s challenges, Jim Chalmers rules out touching the GST in the conversation we have to have about tax reform and shadow finance minister Jane Hume declares “a mature conversation about tax should be about lower, simpler, fairer taxes!”

Oh spare me.

(Having outsourced as much of government as it could to the usual suspects, maybe the Liberal Party could just outsource itself to the Institute of Public Affairs and be done with it. Or maybe they already have.)

But hang on – did I suggest ruling out changes to the GST is silly?

Yes, I did, because it is silly – irresponsible in fact, something yet again based on base politics rather than what is best for the country.

(Don’t scream “evil regressive tax” at me and run away just yet. Read on to see if you can genuinely claim GST shouldn’t be changed without being rather stupid.)

Neither Jim Chalmers or the Treasury are especially stupid. They actually know the GST should be changed, but are too chicken to admit it.

Absurdities aplenty

For starters, mentioning chicken, behold the humble chook – alive, she’s taxable; dead and raw, tax free; cooked and hot, taxable; cooked and cold, tax free.

Chicken nuggets are tax free, a chicken sausage roll is taxable. (No, Virginia, there is no chicken in the Chiko roll and it is taxed.)

While the humble hot chook from the supermarket – the “bachelor’s handbag” and the core of many a quick working family’s dinner – is taxed, the $100-a-kilo wagyu fillet from the gourmet butcher is not.

And while you pay 10 per cent GST on a live chook, your live lobster is tax free.

Eggs? Tax free – perhaps answering one of life’s big questions as “In The Beginning there was no tax”.

That’s the silliness of GST and chooks. There are plenty of other absurdities I had fun with on the GST’s 17th birthday, my favourite being that bones for human consumption are tax free but dogs have to pay GST on their bones – and that’s 70 per cent in dog tax.

Anyone want to tell me now that the GST doesn’t need touching?

The tax is now 23 years old and has been overseen by seven prime ministers, none of whom have been game to fix the obvious little absurdities, let alone deal with the bigger issue of what might be the optimum level of consumption tax for our Commonwealth.

Former PM John Howard introduced the GST in July 2000. Photo: AAP

Contrary to the simplistic cries of the left, consumption taxes are not inherently evil. They have a healthy role to play in our tax mix and the regressive elements can be compensated for.

Worthwhile tax reform – the kind we actually need instead of the fiddling we see around the edges, including what Jim Chalmers has done thus far – would offend just about everyone in some way, but everyone would be better off with a healthier system.

Broaden the base

I’m personally in favour of broadening our GST base but keeping the level at 10 per cent, simply because it keeps the maths simple for me.

On the occasion of that 17th birthday, the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute published a paper showing it would be possible to remove all the exemptions on food, compensate the bottom 40 per cent of households and still gain worthwhile revenue.

Beyond food – the most politically sensitive area – the value of the GST in our tax mix has been undermined over its 23 years by changing consumption patterns.

We (and especially the wealthier ‘we’) are spending proportionately more on GST-free services – private education and private health.

And our spending will continue to change, as the Intergenerational Report warns, e.g. as we move to electric vehicles, Treasury will lose the consumption tax that is the excise paid on fuel.

As the population ages and our dependency ratio – the proportion of workers to non-workers – worsens, it will be unhealthy to keep relying on income tax as our main source of government revenue.

Most obviously, taxing wealth more rather than income would be better.

That’s what intelligent land/wealth/inheritance taxes would do – and all are politically fraught.

Progressive case

A bigger picture was nicely painted in Monday’s Crikey by Benjamin Clark, who made a progressive case for raising the GST.

“By focusing on the tax side of the ledger, progressives often ignore the spending a GST raise would enable,” Mr Clark says.

“If social services or welfare payments were subsequently increased, the benefits to most low-income earners would outweigh the money lost at the checkout.

“Instead of demanding the GST’s revenue be spent equitably, Australia’s mainstream progressives spent the early 2000s backing away from the welfare state, leaving dole recipients to languish on frozen rates, while fussing about GST carve-outs for fruit, vegetables and other items.”

In contrast, the Nordic countries have very high GSTs and more equal societies.

“The Scandinavians don’t worry excessively about whether each individual tax or spending program is the most pro-poor it can possibly be; they just get on with building big welfare states with world-class social services,” writes Mr Clark.

“Their citizens accept higher overall taxes because they see the benefits. And the total effect is much more redistributive than puritan fiddling.”

A membership fee

He also makes the welcome point that tax shouldn’t be seen as a punishment.

“Tax isn’t just about redistribution – though that’s important. It’s also the membership fee we all pay for having a decent society, where we’re insured against the shocks of unemployment, disability, old age and more.”

A highlight of the German Baltic port of Warnemünde is the Brunnen Warnminner Ümgang – a statue depicting citizens walking in procession to pay their taxes.

A tour guide told us that instead of whingeing about paying tax, the locals decided to celebrate it, being thankful for the ability to pay and the importance of civic duty and community spirit.

That does sound rather Utopian, but it’s part of the excuse for holding the Warnemünde Laternenfest each December – and the Germans love a winter festival.

It’s hard to imagine Australians being so progressive, but “touching” the GST could be part of progression. Just ask a chook.