Australian Economy - does it exclude ordinary Australians?

CBA CEO Mr Narev says, Increase the GST, cut the corporate tax".
This after the bank made $9 billion in profit and adding more gold on Mr Narev's future golden handshake I believe.

The GST primarily serves every citizen because of the tax disparity. The rich pay less tax and the middle income earners bear the brunt of the economy and the poor have no taxable income anyway. A broad based tax system means the burden is distributed to everyone who uses goods and services that come under the GST. This means it is the ordinary Australians who are responsible for the movement of the economy. If, for instance, you have an unfortunate dispute with your neighbour over a tree and you have to call in to a human blotting paper (read Solicitor) you will pay a tax that normally you would never pay. Naturally the bigger the fee the bigger the tax. Not to mention if you have diarrhoea and go through more toilet paper you will buy more and pay more GST.
This means your cost of living rises with the cost escalation.
On top of that if you live in a country like Australia with three tiered system of government and one that taxes on tax and is one of the most expensive places to live in the world you barely save any disposable cash.
Ask any decent hard working Australians and they will tell you they are doing it tough.
If the government were to heed to Mr Narev and NSW Premier's call then all this country will end up is a ghost economy - prosperity for no one to enjoy but a few at the higher echelons of the society.
But that is what they want anyway. Today's Australia is comparable to Africa - oops I should not have done that! I said the truth.
Africa? Yes, for a country so rich in resources have some of the poorest and hungriest people in the world. Compare this to Australia - with so much natural wealth not to mention the so called compassionate banks and the mines behind us - more Australians are pushed down to poverty every day.
Home ownership is at its lowest and the only people I see are able to move from one place to another are the retirees who had it all and now have almost all in their life on the "sunset boulevard".

So can we perhaps justify Mr Narev? I am sorry but based on the corporate mindset and track record this is another attempt to hoodwink the public and add more to their coffer (and hammer in the nails on the coffin that the people are pushed in).
In theory one can not deny the economy needs a boost. But in reality that is only possible IF the following were true: more profitable companies were employing more people, really small businesses were to benefit from such reforms, cost of living was reined in to justify lower wages, exorbitant profits were socially distributed and the Australian dreams of home ownership and fair go were realised. This won't be the case, sadly. Even if the companies make more profit they either won't hire more people Or they will want to pay peanuts to solidify their financial position. Living on peanuts is possible if peanuts were acceptable medium of  exchange! They are not and still the rich cry foul like a child screams when you take a tiny bite of the huge fairy floss.

In 1789 the French Revolution begun when the Queen Marie Antoinette was supposed to have said to the hungry mob outside her gate that they ought to eat cakes if they have no bread! Alas! there will be no Aussie revolution. We are too compliant and complacent. Flurry of the economy may cause a flutter in the tummy but we would rather keep running to the ol'dunny than running up the streets; we would dump in the old pan than on the steps of the parliament.

Australian economy needs a helping hand? The banks and mines have never let go off the hand since federation! For example, the Aussie big banks unlike their foreign cousins, live on fees, charges, staff cuts to solidify their profit base. Very little effort is made to expand profit making ventures.. Even if they make profit they still cut staff to remain competitive (sic) and for that thank our progress in IT as an irony. Anti-welfare lobby screams at the welfare expenditure even though 75% of welfare money gets spent on rent for most. Who, therefore actually is being subsidised? The wealthy who can rent out houses to hapless people. Do they then voluntarily reinvest the money back into the society? Or do they make sure they go to a good accountant who waves the magic wand and suddenly the "poor" landlord ends up with a loss that he or she then has to offset from their other income? Hmmm...good question and everyone knows the answer. What goes around does not come around.
I say Mr Premier and Mr Narev get a reality check and live like the undercover populace for a week then make a judgment. Remember once a lemon is squeezed out all that is left is bitter juice.