When the effective tax rate is close to what we want them to pay then we can have a conversation about tax cuts for business.

Tax imputations means most of the benefits will flow offshore to foreign shareholders and in the case of American corporations, they will under the double tax act of 1953, have to pay extra tax, [currently an extra 5%], to their tax office!

In any event most of this stuff is BS given the actual company tax corporations pay is between a reported 1-4%? Moreover around a reported 95% of corporate Australia have offshored their head office to take advantage of lower tax, energy and labor costs!?

Only four corporations, [the banks?] pay most of our company tax? And in any fair comparison, already the most profitable banks in the world?

Yes there's a case for root and branch tax reform! Which if intelligently designed will give our economy a massive boost! Regrettably, this patently partisan juvenile rubbish isn't it?
Alan B.

More foreign investment doesn't necessarily mean more investment, because a similar result could be achieved by cutting interest rates to stimulate domestic investment.

As explained in the SMH this week (Tuesday I think), the firm "Independent Economics" has (under a previous name) a history of commissioning biased reports for the Australian government no matter who's in power. The claim of reduced tax avoidance is overoptimistic because countries such as Britain have the same problem despite a lower company tax rate.

If considered in isolation, cutting company tax would bring some economic benefits. As would cutting almost any tax. But if we consider cost effectiveness of ways to grow the economy, company tax cuts score quite low. They should not be a priority.

Looking at the other output of the author it's clear he is a golden shower...Opps I mean trickle down economics fans boy.

Economics eh the only field other then Politics that you can be wrong most of the time and still keep your job.

Alan B. According to my reading of all the blurb, the foreign companies which in general are large will NOT be getting any benefits for several years, so I don't know what you are bleating about.

David

David, according to your reply, my reading of your intellectual capacity to understand anything related to economics is nil? Little wonder you interpreted my post as just blurp!?

I just don't suffer fools gladly and consequently I have nothing else to add, given an explanation you'd actually understand, would require much more time and pearls than I'd care to waste!? You all have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.