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 > Trickle-down or trickle-up? > Comments

Trickle-down or trickle-up? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 12/4/2018

Company tax cuts may benefit shareholders and executives rather than other employees, and Australia has sufficient incentives to attract foreign investment already.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The cuts would certainly increase profits and make companies more competitive with overseas companies, but how would the unemployment pool diminish? Answer: it would not. Manufacturers etc would not employ any more people than they do now. The don't need to, and there would be no trickle-down effect. Business would just pocket the tax cuts and continue upping prices domestically and paying themselves too much.

All these companies the government wants to support have already demonstrated their greed and lack of interest in Australia by moving off-shore. Any increase in employment would go to low paid foreign workers.

The big end is already screwing ordinary Australians. Just look at prices for everything.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 12 April 2018 8:27:26 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
And Australia is the most expensive country in the world for ice addicts.

Tax cuts will make no difference to them.

Which leads to the fact that almost a third of the Australian economy exists in the black market, where nobody pays tax.

One would think, Governments would concentrate their efforts towards reigning in tax dodgers in the small business economy.

A total view across all sectors of the Australian economy, shows the repugnance towards paying taxes by all of it, is leading to loss of Government income on a grand scale.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 12 April 2018 10:20:58 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
Everything you say is true Mike? Even so, there's a case for tax reduction and for every tax payer. And as an entirely unavoidable PAYE/PAYG flat tax of 15%, everyone who earns income above a sensible threshold, say $50,000.00 P.A. pays. With no exclusions or tax avoidance for any reason. XXX Were this made mandatory, the sharp practice you identified Mike, would not save those employing it, a single brass razoo. But rather, have them pay our tax on all income earned. Then that of their preferred tax haven! XXX And if they want to sell for the cost of production to a parent company then let them. Always providing they have the requisite export licence and the parent company not able to export Australian made production back here! XXX An entirely unavoidable 15% flat tax will make any tax avoidance null and void. And the only reason we don't have it as genuine reform. Along with a plethora of mealy mouthed politicians benefitting from the current system with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. XXX And with it replacing all other tax, tax compliance costs vanish along with the complex system that allowed tax fraud and avoidance. And enable companies currently paying the 7% averaged ripped from the bottom line by current compliance costs to return this money to the bottom line. Meaning, the new effective rate would be just 8%. And plenty of incentive to invest and keep the profits onshore least they be double taxed by another economy. XXX Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:01:54 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
There's also a case for reduced government spending, just not reduced services. And only double if all the profit demanding middlemen, government or private are removed from the system! XXX How? Well by a direct funding model for education and health and as means tested endowments for those using either publicly funded health or publicly funded education. XXX Which would then require all service providers to compete in an open free market for clientele. Because that is where their bucket of money would then reside. XXX Moreover, it would matter how many palms they greased, nothing would alter that! Arguably, This and the army of bureaucrats removed from this particular trough by the reform, the only reason we haven't already installed this pragmatism; and the regional autonomy that would further reduce government expenditure by as much as 30%. Without needing to reduce or withhold a single service. XXX Just unable to engage in the usual pork barrelling and vote buying (corruption) that so marks the current service roll out. XXX Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:25:29 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
On this note one should add the government claims it can't pay one hundred billion (one third of a single year's tax receipts) for a completely sovietised power delivery system. XXX But private enterprise can. Even if they, private enterprise have to pay twice as much to borrow their money, which sees the average consumer paying it for them in their price gouged power bill. We the people pay either way as tax payers and or consumers. XXX This is the same nonsensical economically illiterate reason for wanting private enterprise to roll out the NBN. Privatising our bank and privatising our telco etc.! XXX Yes there was a case for corporatizing all the above and making them effectively independent entities not run by the government. XXX Simply put, a sovietised power supply would still earn a return, especially if sane cooperative capitalization were applied to the management/employment model. The reason, the dramatically lower energy costs that'd Then be imposed business and the domestic user. XXX And we could then decide when to upgrade and when to replace and from earned income, earned here and kept here! XXX Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:49:43 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 big end is already screwing ordinary Australians.'

The only ones screwing Australians is Australians....especially when they go to the polling stations and vote!...vote for what?... who knows? and that's where the whole thing falls down.
The indigenous want Price Charles to sit down and discuss the hand back of Australia....what effing planet am I on?

The 'mericans want to missile Syria on the unproven claim that Assad was responsible for the gas while they're still denying dropping Agent Orange on their and our troops in Vietnam or the decimation of Iraq...with Australian help...puleeze
May accusing the Russian as a done deal when the British establishment has to have two commissions of enquiry over 20 years to determine who lied about Iraq
The world in chaos and we're discussing tax cuts which don't mean a thing other than a further financial drain of profits or does everyone think foreign investment is someone buying a condo on the Gold Coast?
Posted by Special Delivery, Thursday, 12 April 2018 9:21:16 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 think the answer is both.
Cant really have one without the other or the system will fail.
You need good policies for money to trickle down from the top and good policies to ensure money is injected at the bottom.
Tax reform at the top, it's a travesty individuals are taxed massively but companies aren't taxed at all.
I propose a 5% component which must be paid as tax by all companies regardless of minimisation strategies.

Second Welfare reform.
Double dole for full-time work paid daily doing thing help the government save money. Why pay $250wk for nothing if you can pay $500 and get a full time worker?
Workers build infrastructure to lower cost of energy and transport and to increase job and business opportunities in the private sector.

Makes use of the 5% unemployed workers capatalism needs to prevent wage growth, but gives them the job you have when you don't have a job.
Creates culture of employment within ranks of the unemployed, plus reduced costs of training.

Am I really the only person in the damn country who can figure out the basic simplicity of how to fix it?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 13 April 2018 8:38:35 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
AC

*...Double dole for full-time work paid daily doing thing help the government save money. Why pay $250wk for nothing if you can pay $500 and get a full time worker?...*

Remember the old RED scheme?

The unemployed will become bureaucrats. Everyone will aspire to it. Chaos will be the outcome. The cost to the taxpayer will outstrip the benefits and savings expectations.

Secondly, nobody on the dole gets money for jam. There is an obligation to return tit for tat with voluntary work, as it stands.

Most of that voluntary work is digging holes and filling them in again. Maybe at this point there could be a better return for taxpayers, by reorganising the negatives of this towards more productive work.

I'd propose less 457 visa workers, and better use of the potential of the existing unemployed workers.

Stronger requirements for the unemployed to move from dead spots, to places where the work is, and withdrawing dole payments for those who will not comply with that necessity.
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 13 April 2018 9:53:15 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
Hi Diver Dan,
On the face value my idea probably does seem undoable, but that's where it all comes down to implementation.
- Looking at all the ways it won't work and finding the solutions to make it foolproof. Alleviate poor planning.
We can't just implement it without prospective jobs, so we need a nation project with up to 500,000 jobs. something that can boost jobs in the private sector long term, and helps with lowering business transport and energy costs (to make business in Aus more competitive and create employment opportunities)
So what I envisage to fill that requirement is new direct route HSR and national highways with strait routes between every capital city including water and power internet, kind of like an Aussie version of China's silk road.. Inc Darwin super ort and solar farms, maybe even Alan Bís thorium...
This will create opportunities to mass train people at lower cost, and we'll have to implement a kind of technical backbone to make it work. Resumes need to be updated to digital resumes that include recognised skills, that gives access to different jobs in the system, and logging in and accessing a job shift..
I also envisage training for individual job shifts via app.
The problem with current arrangements is job seekers have to dig holes and fill them and it really doesn't help anyone.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 14 April 2018 9:14:25 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
If I have to train 10000 unemployed to drive mini buses to go pick up all the other unemployed that's what I'll do, If I need an army making sandwiches and an army assembling dongas and armies land clearing or mass training to use heavy equipment that's what I'll do. If some have to install solar panels on sun farms or even clean up old mines sites for sand and rock raw materials that's what I'll do.
When you participate you also earn training credits like loyalty points to spend on skills.
If I have to offer non violent prisoners half off their sentences for participation and turn liabilities into assets across the board that's what I'll do.
And the whole purpose of this is to ensure that the people at the bottom of the pile have access to money, a way to get it and inject it at the bottom, whilst lowering the cost of training and getting better value for our investment in training as well as keeping people busy and doing something useful, making it easier for people to succeed, it makes it harder for them to get in a rut or downward spiral, of bad circumstances or choices and fail.
It'll create a culture of employment within the unemployed, but it can be more too, connect with charities and make it skills oriented it becomes a kind of social club where you work and learn to make smart choices and get ahead.
Do you have any idea how much the government throws away?
Right now they will give you a voucher for $100/$150 or so for work boots - retail then they pay an external provider $80/$100 for a white card they could easily develop an online app themselves.
Why not buy all the boots wholesale?
They throw away millions...
The simplest ideas.. if you expand on these two things to get a grasp of the extent of inefficiency...

And this provides other benefits/savings like training for indigenous, preventing family breakups when a bloke can't find work, ethnic diversity..

What was the RED scheme?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 14 April 2018 10:20:38 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