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.

Further to my previous comment, it was actually that day (Thursday) that the SMH published it. 'Tis at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/-gpel26.html

A few highlights:

"They were formerly known as Econtech and were the folks behind a 2010 analysis into the apparent effectiveness of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
Theirs was the report that the Turnbull government used as the main justification for attempting to reinstate the ABCC in April."

"Justice Wilcox, head of the 2009 ABCC inquiry,praised Ecotech's report as being "deeply flawed… it ought to be completely disregarded" to the point where the ABCC actually deleted it from its website, while the Productivity Commission examined the findings in 2014 and used the strongest possible terms to disassociate itself from the report."

"Oh, and there was a similar controversy in 2010 when the then-Labor government commissioned a report from Econtech which spruiked the growth and productivity benefits of the mining tax, despite containing a number of treasury-demanded assumptions which company tax experts described as "absurd"."

Great article but im afraid it will fall on deaf ears on this site.

People here only see what they want to see and don't see the real picture, like, why don't they do the math by inputting the potential taxes they feel multi nationals should pay, then with drawing the taxes they do pay, if any, as well as the GST they create, the income taxes paid on employees behalf, payroll taxes, work cover premiums, general insurance as well as indemnity, even the money they pay out for service and support industries. In other words, every red cent they bring to the table. Of cause these numbers are amplified by the fact that they don't only employ people, but they create jobs that would not be there without their presence.

So let them do the math and, if it shows we are better off without them, then by all means call for their scalps, but until such is proven, they should stop biting the hand that feeds them in my view.

Labor were big on company tax cuts until it became Liberal policy.

Ah - the long-discredited trickle down effect. A golden shower trickles down when Mr Greed relieves himself on the hoi polloi.

EJ,

What Bollocks, this has bugger all to do with the trickle down effect. This is about making it possible for companies to invest, just as building roads etc does.

If no one invests and employs then everyone is equal in poverty.

Give Mr Greed $50 billion in tax cuts and Mr Greed will reward the Great Unwashed with more jobs and growth. Reads like trickle down to me.

Here's a tax reform proposal that is close to the reality of wealth creation [1]:

First accept the truth that created wealth consists of created goods and services.

Second accept the truth that wealth is created by labour based on the bounty of nature [2], and by nothing else.

Third accept that investment consists of releasing wealth, created by labour and either saved or acquired by the investor, to fund wealth production.

Now the tax proposal: Abandon regressive indirect taxes, and tax income on a dual scale as was done during the war. Personal exertion income of the lifters and "unearned" income of the leaners. Personal exertion income from personal hands-on creation of wealth by the taxpayer. "Unearned" income actually earned but not personally by the taxpayer who has acquired it.

Grant a massive rebate on the rate of tax for personal exertion income. Let the leaners carry the rest of the tax burden.

[1] This proposal is for a direction for tax reform to take, not a blueprint for Budget 2017-18.

[2] To bounty of nature could be added the pool of communal wealth in the form of science and technology and other infrastructure wealth accumulated by the people as a whole.

EJ,

No one accepts your statements as truths. One only has to look at the miserable failures of all marxist states.

there is no such think as a trickle down theory of economics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Cutting company tax is not the most effective way to create "jobs and growth", though. The benefits go mainly to foreign investors.