The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Who ends up paying company taxes? > Comments

Who ends up paying company taxes? : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 19/3/2010

Tony Abbott will pay for his proposed paid parental leave with a company tax. But who will really foot the bill?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
We will all pay, of course. But, why should we?

Paid maternity leave is an absolute rort against taxpayers one way or the other. The only thing working mothers should be entitled to is job security - the right to return to their job when they are ready.

I wonder what childless women who intend to remain childless think about paid maternity leave.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 19 March 2010 9:45:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A refined example of the art of stating the bleedin' obvious.

Of course taxation is passed on to the consumer in the form of price adjustments.

At base, all business runs on the simplest equation: sales, minus expenses, equals profit. If the government mandates expenditure in the "expenses" category, prices will rise accordingly.

But, just one tiny correction, if I may.

"The GST is another case in which the burden of a tax doesn’t fall on the entity that pays the tax bill. Although the law says that the tax is levied on those who supply goods and services, it is customers who end up bearing most of the burden"

GST is clearly stated on the consumer's receipt, so it is crystal clear who is paying.

The subtlety is of course that the government has delegated responsibility for the collection and remittance of GST, as well as the accounting that goes with it, onto the supplier of goods and services.

The cost of this task also, of course, ends up with the consumer.

There simply isn't anywhere else for it to go.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 March 2010 11:05:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The money will basically come from everyone's super fund savings,
so Costello is correct, Tony is throwing basic liberal philosophy
out of the window, in order to try and win the next elections.

If companies pay more tax, then they earn less net profit which
means less dividends for shareholders. Given that workers have
1 trillion $ in super savings and largely own Australian industry,
Tony is basically stuffing money into the pockets of those who
he thinks might vote for him now, whilst taking it out of their
back pockets with the other hand.

All very sneaky, but clearly any kind of political philosophy
has been thrown out the window. They want to win at any cost.
Politicians with no principles, hardly deserve to govern.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 March 2010 2:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Leigh on this one.

We already pay a 'baby bonus', a 'health care card', subsidised medical.

You should be made to give a guarantee to return to work or your job will be given to someone else.

After all, they are your kids, your choice, you foot the bill. Just like we did when we CHOSE to have kids.

As for company taxes, of cause the consumer pays.

My suggestion would be to dump all taxes and give a 'transaction tax' a go. Can't be any worse, can it?

No deductions, no rebates, no credits, no BAS and no accountants.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 19 March 2010 6:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The X-Factor. Do we have one?

I only hope that Dr Henry can find a hose that pans a steam roller over the way the accounts are being distributed across the country technically, socially and economically.

I see bubbles at the top, and bubbles in the middle, and rorting rife loading the bottom up. [Maths]. Our ignorance each set or determined, appears to bog the best of our developed world aptness - driving a quagmire. You can bet your buttons that the dog cheating any other will sadly mean the last few chewing is sure to survive.

Morally we are digging muskegs. Hapless with our knowledge, we sap deeper with our wants, our desire and spin, till all the accumulated wealth meant becomes a sizzle hot griddle, unfit even for a well oiled fry pan. Food for thought!

My point is substance. The lack of it. Every decent aim there is, has another counterproductive backwash that we write down as untended, when it isn't.

It is our failure to take each, our responsibility. As citizens, business people and leaders.

Going nowhere less you are on the gravy train, have a megaphone and the camera's to support the antics.

Elastic pulled left, right, till the center grows arid of clear inputs no matter how deserving [we] gave the cream to the apple or pie. The core principal of politics is missing. We will dry the fruit until we find prominence over the present tone of protuberance.

Abbott is an actor. Sadly he has lost that serious self reflection others once said he had. He has himself on and he is trying to pull our tail down with his below the waist.

Australia awaits a real chance to see a real Liberal leader. One we can really speak with, less the boxing match.

Thanks for the question Andrew Leigh?

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 20 March 2010 2:09:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who pays the GST? ie We all assume it is the customer.It depends on how competitive a particular market is.When competition is high ,small businesses absorb some of the tax to keep a market share.Bigger business with less competition can pass it on.

I don't think that Tony Abbott has any intention passing full pay for 6 mnths maqternity leave.It was ill thought out if he is serious.Tony wants to improve his female vote that he lost due to his stance on abortion.I don't think he has really any hope of winning this yrs election,so his intent is to get within striking distance by taking as many votes as possible from Labor now.When and if he wins in 4 yrs it will be vastly watered down or forgotten.The economic conditions may be too dire.I thought Tony would be different,but alas just another polly.Nothing like re-inforcing old stero types.

It also pre-judices job opportunities for young females who are married who might have children.The solution for a lot of women would be not to be married.

A better scheme would be to let parents income split when they do have a child thus paying less tax.We have to stop this stupid churning of Govt, taxing the life out us and handing it back to interest groups to win votes.The process of churning is wasteful and inefficient.The more the nanny state intervenes,the less reponsible is the rest of society.Reduce the size of the bureaucracy and stimulate the private sector.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 20 March 2010 8:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what I remember is that company tax was paid on company profits after expenses.

This tax would not affect company profits or viability in the existing business envionment, but would reduce the available dividends payable, and thus the share price. (and investment portfolios)

The effect of this is not directly a price increase, but rather a flight of capital from domestic investment to overseas, which is still not a good thing.

Most countries have a far greater allowance for maternity leave, and child care, and as a result have a far greater participation in the workforce by women.

The additional tax from the income generated would go a long way to compensate for this.

Given that majority of university graduates today are women, this should be a vast untapped pool of resources that could drive the economy instead of relying on importing skills from overseas.

I would however, consider 6 months too much and would make it 3 months. (or 6 months at half pay).
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 22 March 2010 12:05:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy