Here's the rub, the most any company paid in actual dollars in tax last year was just 17%. With one in three paying none at all for up to three years!

With many companies recording record profit on record profit!

This government seems all about serving the needs or wishes of debt laden, tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating foreigners? All while the mugs out there in mugsville pay and pay and pay! For less and less and less.

Housing unaffordable except for negatively geared landlords or for kids with parents so well heeled they can buy them a house, even as the energy crisis just deepens and is patently driving industries and jobs offshore.

Were this government governing for joe average Australian, things would be very different. We'd already have nuclear power. not just any nuclear but molten salt thorium and energy price where the median was just 2 cents PKH.

And there'd be genuine tax reform for all, not privileged foreigners. And would look like a flat tax of just 15% and unavoidable. With the one in three currently avoiding paying any, finally paying the same as the rest of us!

The effect of just making it unavoidable, with no exclusion or quarantines, would make a complete nonsense out of reconciliation and other costly tax compliance schemes.

Which instead would become completely null and void, and allow those tax compliance costs (7% av) to be returned to the bottom line. Making the effective tax rate just 8%. And if any bona fide business couldn't pay that, hardly viable?

Moreover, its just income/profits that are taxed, so forget the outraged screams as the crooks and con artists finally get their comeuppance! Mr trump would just love it!?
Alan B.

It's all very well to sympathise with Bob and his wait for surgery, but why hasn't he got health insurance that would see him into a private hospital within a week? Forget about continuing to blame the long-gone Abbott, and think about what Bob could have done to look after himself, and not be reliant on other people's money to look after HIS health.

Before I go any further, I have to say that I'm one of those “ 330,000 pensioners (who)have seen a cut to their age pension following changes to the pension assets test”, so I'm not some fat cat looking to grind the proletariat into the ground. But I do have my priorities right, and I do have private health cover.

Before we listen to socialist politicians' sob stories (Matt Thistlethwaithe is the Labor member for Kingsford Smith) we have to remember that they are big government spenders of other peoples' money, and their 'business model' entails having the plebs reliant on them: the more they give you, the more control they have over you. And they don't tell you whether people like Bob are relying on the public system because of circumstances beyond their control, or they are because they have the wrong priorities for spending their money.

But Bob hasn't a lot to do with the theme of this article. Needing hip replacements he would not be a particular victim of proposed cuts to company tax. Giving money to business via tax cuts will not make living any costlier for Bob or the rest of us who no longer work. The government is talking about tax cuts as way to increase employment, and this is, of course, a ridiculous notion. If business needed to employ more people they would be doing it now, tax cuts or not. There are simply not enough jobs to go around in Australia, and tax cuts to employers will not disguise the fact that there are too many people in this country for the jobs available. A cessation of mass immigration is what is needed.

Like it or not it is very difficult to get away without private health cover. Unless, of course, you are either extremely healthy or extremely wealthy.
You won`t make money out of having it and certainly won`t break even but it will cost a lot more without it.

Funny isn't it. Trumps tax cuts have led to greatly reduced unemployment, & the first real wage increases in the US in almost a decade. I wonder why Thistlethwaite expects them to do something different here.

Then he appears to have trouble distinguishing between revenue & profits. No he doesn't you say, so he is just hoping the reader is too dumb to notice, & he will get away with telling lies by inference.

God no wonder that we would prefer an honest adulterer, than a totally dishonest socialists.

From what I understand, the tax burden has fallen to middle income earners as taxation revenue from company tax and high net worth individuals has fallen.

If we look at our politicians,they enjoy the ability to salary package, many have family trusts, more than a few negatively gear their property portfolios.

Some retired politicians like our former Treasurer, is not only receiving his generous taxpayer funded superannuation, but he is also being employed as an ambassador.

When it comes to health care, there are three ways of funding it.

The first is in many countries, there is no insurance or government funded health care so the individual has to fund it some how, generally by selling assests, like their house or business.

The second and third are variations of each other.

Private health insurance, collect money from many policy holders where it is then put into a pool and hopefully nobody makes a claim, but given that a hip replacement can cost upto a 100k or more if there are complications, that 100k is definitely more than what a individual would have paid in premiums.

However to make Private Health insurance profitable there are exclusions such as hip replacements, cardiac surgery, dialysis etc.

The United States Private Health insurance companies deny around 10% of claims.

Government funded health care is where it is funded through taxation so everybody pays. Rather strangely it is classified at free, even though every one contributes through taxation. Just like the Private Health insurance where all people who are policy holders are covered.

Wages growth is driven by a demand for labour. With the unemployment at nearly 6% as left by labor, there is more supply than demand and employers can get away with minimal increases. When unemployment drops as it is beginning to do now, it becomes harder to fill vacancies and so higher wages are paid. Cutting company tax makes investing more profitable and so more jobs are created which in turn increase wages.

The benefits to the budget are more taxpayers and less people on welfare. Carefully managed this leads to no net change to the budget.

Careful there AlanB.

Nationalism leads to authoritarianism, which in turn leads to war!

Diver, suggest you reread my post more thoroughly, if only to understand, no nationalism was envisaged. All I suggested was a tax methodology that the current tax avoiders couldn't avoid!

That said, I prefer cooperative capitalism and as a means to get australian profits winding up exclusively in Australian bank accounts! And where no tax avoidance would be necessary or desirable.

For instance in a corporate capitalism model, we wouldn't have shut down the car industry, But reclaimed most of the money we've ploughed into it by confiscating the robotics and assembly lines then setting these industries up, with the government acting as the facilitator to enable employee operated co-ops.

And as right hand drive electric vehicles for a large enough niche market with sufficient economies of scale to more than support maximum possible production. Say a million units a year?

Co-ops are the only free market private enterprise model to largely survive the great depression, mostly intact.

Moreover they beat the pants off traditional public enterprise and big business alike. And ensure our money stays here percolating around and through our economy, working for The Australian economy and creating flow on factors that makes one dollar do the work of seven.

And resisted by most big business, given they know to a virtual man. They simply could compete. And just one of thousands of poissile examples. We just need a government that puts Australia and Australians first!

The key to ultimate success is cheap energy and skillful marketing. Plus our own national fleet ensuring our products get priority.

Yes we can afford all of it by leveraging our own two trillion plus, super fund!
Alan B.

You can't give tax cuts to companies that pay no tax to begin with.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/16/abc-removes-corporate-tax-cut-analysis-after-complaints-from-malcolm-turnbull

Also I was googling Emma Alberici and I came across this article and thought it was worth a mention:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/news-and-current-affairs/lateline-host-emma-alberici-hits-back-at-bully-claim-20170815-gxwlu3.html

So here's a special shoutout to 'Broede Carmody' who stated:
'The commentator also suggests children are better off being raised by a mother and father, which is incorrect.

The budget is forecast to be back in surplus around five years from now as it was five years hence and by the same advisors? Even with corporate tax cuts included?

How?

Well by imposing bracket creep into the extrapolation? Always providing wages growth keeps up with or exceeds inflation?

In the interim, the government, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from will be looking for foreign investors to invest in Australia? As seen in most of our "own" defence industries?

Let's hope they don't run true to form as debt laden, tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating, non patriot, foreigners?

We've always had foreign investors? Starting with the gold miners from the world over, here to make a quick killing and go home with a fortune? Some found out that the quick killing was only applied to them by the authorities who just wanted to tax them into the ground, unless the came from privileged backgrounds or British aristocracy?

We don't do cooperative capitalism very well, but courtesy of John Howard and a compliant national party, set about dismantling it and the floor price system that supported most of it, along with regional and rural australia.

And instead of dismantling it we could've instead chosen to modernise it and bring it into the 21st century!

But no, we'd sooner sell our souls and heritage to the devil or the aforementioned foreign investor? Who when the going got tough got up and went! TBC.
Alan B.

So traditionally, when the choice boiled down to prospering the nation and our own people via cooperative capitalism or just selling what was not nailed down to foreign investors or non working drone investors, we always chose the latter!

We could have used the same social credit/monetary model that created the postwar Japanese economic miracle, That took a bankrupt, war torn and almost destroyed, resource poor nation, to the second largest economy in the world!

But no, like the divided rabble we've become, sold off what was not nailed down at bargain basement fire sales?

And made the fatal mistake of allowing virtually unfettered foreign investment in our real estate and to the point where virtually none of our children can buy/afford a home of their own or indeed as par for the course, the family farm!

We could do so much better and just by putting Australia and Australians first, but no, that wouldn't include post politics "prosperity" for our alleged public servants?

Others have described our political class as clueless and gutless?

It's far worse than that, they are visionless idealogues myopically focused, on the demands of the political contest and largely irrelevant minusia, to the point of failing to understand or even implement their true role?

And fail to understand, in an Australia where universal prosperity was the creation and handmaiden of the political establishment, they wouldn't ever have to worry about post politics penury!

Yes we can do tax reform and for real and implement an energy policy for we Australians, not ever foreigner with a fist full of dollars!
Alan B.

Sadly, the author's long and unrelated socialist shopping-list dilutes the argument.

I oppose the author's shopping-list, but I also oppose the proposed corporate tax cuts. On the contrary, I support a gradual INCREASE of corporate taxes.

First, unlike the compulsory taxing of individuals, taxing corporations is not immoral (corporations are not sentient beings) - so if some tax-taking is needed, then let it be from the corporations.

Second, foreign companies diminish our ability to survive on our own once the world's economy goes down the gurgler ('once', rather than 'if'), as well as to maintain moral standards as the world's moral standards decline. This is not a matter of nationalism, but of keeping things simpler, local and less dependent on mammoth structures, so operating the essential economy on Australia-scale is better than operating it on a global scale, though I would prefer to reduce that scale even further. Taxing foreign corporations is a good way to discourage them from operating in Australia.

Now there is a problem: many share-holding beneficiaries of corporations are ordinary people, especially through superannuation, including those who have no other assets. Over the years, Australian governments, through the RBA, used inflation to force people who are otherwise decent and responsible, to become risk-taking shareholders - and now it's difficult to untangle. This requires gradual and careful transition off holding shares, first away from foreign companies and eventually from all large corporations. In any case, artificial state-initiated inflation needs to stop, so that people can keep their hard-earned savings without resorting to share-holding, along with the dependency and corruption that come with it.

Some worry about unemployment. Now I do not consider unemployment a bad thing, but let's not enter this discussion because in fact it won't happen: as the big corporations are driven out, there will be more need for local workers to resume producing those essentials that were formerly lost to mass-production by large corporations. Good old skills will be re-learned, hopefully in time to survive a global economic collapse.

You couldn't be more wrong Yuyutsu. You are talking a return to pre WW11 conditions, & methods of manufacture.

Wages & living standards would have to go back to the 20s, or 30s, when no ordinary worker could afford a car, to own their own home, & struggled to put shoes on their kids feet.

It is not by design that nothing is repaired today, but by necessity. Anything electronic or electric has to be "potted" making it harder to repair to keep manufacturing costs down, not because it is desirable, but because the labour costs in complex repairs are just not viable. Reduce those labour costs, by cutting wages, & again, the kids go barefoot. I guess that would not matter, as manufactured that way, no worker could afford electronics anyway.

I don't know how many of todays population are ready to go back to renting a 4 room house, cooking on a fuel stove, & heating water for the weekly tub on it, but I doubt it is very many.

Be careful what you wish for, the global warming scam is aimed at puting you back there, the scammers don't need your help.

Judith Sloan had an article in The Australian yesterday which points out the ignorance of most people on company tax issues. It explains why some companies might not have paid taxes on occasion, and how some politicians and ABC ranters thinks profits always means taxes. And another thing: it's not big business that is dodging taxes, it's small business doing most of the rorting

Hasbeen: You claim you used to be an Engineer? Well in my experience engineers dealt almost exclusively in facts! Not rumour or a confirmation bias!

So here are a few irrefutable facts for you to ruminate on.

#1/ The weather is subject to NORMAL climate variations, i.e., #2/ when the sun goes into it habitual and normal waning phase, the joint cools and advancing polar and glacial ice is par for the course.

#3/ when it goes into its waxing phase the opposite happens and the geological record bears witness with, e.g., a fossilized forest in Antarctica.

#4/ when we get an El Nino event there is a short burst of global warming.

#5/ A La Nina event welcomes a cooling event and increased Australian rainfall.

#6/ Because we follow an elliptical orbit around our sun, there are minor variations in that, that are usually a bit each way, over the year or orbit.

#7/ What never ever happens is record heat waves and disappearing ice during a waning phase!

According to NASA and some very sensitive satellite mounted instruments and as reported by them for public consumption, we have been in a waning phase since the mid seventies.

#8/ 2017 the third hottest year on record was a La Nina year!

Old mate, sparring partner, specialist in rational and logical thought, the nation's engineers are compelled by the factual evidence!

One of which is, CO2 is at record percentages and in never before charted territory.

I don't know if you have or are expecting Grandkids Has, but I hope you can look them in the eye and say, I know you will be better off than me or your parents, because I've left you my coal company shares.

Which could be virtually worthless by the time they reach adulthood?

And God only knows what kind of a world they'll inherit and whether they'll proper, let alone survive as an overpopulated impoverished world goes to perpetual war for diminishing natural resources! Returning to a waxing phase?
Alan B.

Dear Hasbeen,

I am not proposing a return to the 1920's/1930's, but only to the 1960's/1970's/1980's, which were optimal times.

Of course we are not going to forget the good things we learnt since, including in medicine, but yes, products like shoes and cars ought to be made well to last and repaired when necessary rather than thrown to the rubbish dump. Parts thereof can also be reused because the models won't be changing all the time. Electric water-heaters and the like are fine and can be maintained locally, as opposed to digital electronic toys that cannot be repaired on a local scale even if we wanted and then they become obsolete anyway within 2-5 years (not to mention their being subject to foreign hacking and spying).

Yes, one will have to be rich to obtain these toys, which will no longer be normal household items, but we don't really need those and can do better without them. Enthusiasts could still get such luxuries from overseas for a premium price for as long as "overseas" continues to exist, while the rest of us will sigh with relief when we continue to survive once the rest of the world starves because they sought the glittery stuff and forgot the basics.

Come on Yuyutsu, it costs twice as much to get the old fashioned half sole & heal on real shoes, as it does to get a pair of imported plastic shoes. The real things cost a kings ransom.

Alan it does sound as if you actually believe that garbage. I suppose you must think the deep freeze in most of the northern hemisphere is a symptom of global warming.

Pity, apart from falling for this scam, you usually talk sense.

I have little interest in the subject as I know CO2 can not cause global warming

Dear Hasbeen,

«The real things cost a kings ransom.»

Of course, one gets what one pays for.
Some of our younger readers have never experienced the real things, but are addicted to cheap plastic and worse.

The problem is that this compromise for short-term gain creates dependency and with it comes moral insensitivity, forgetfulness and the loss of genuine skills, which in turn leads to slavery.

If local craftsmen and small businesses can mould one-piece plastic shoes on their own, then why not? But if they cannot, then you know that something has gone very wrong.

When one has to choose between going barefoot and Chinese rule, I wonder how many will find the strength to choose the former. Fortunately, we can act now so that nobody will have to face such terrible choices in future.

>I have little interest in the subject as I know CO2 can not cause global warming

Struth, Hasbeen, that's absolutely astonishing! So astonishing that I think the chances that you're telling the truth are (very conservatively) less than one in a million. Still, I'd like to be proved wrong, so please tell us:
How did you gain this wondrous knowledge?
What prevents CO2 from causing global warming?
What is the real cause of the global warming we've been experiencing?

CO2 is greening the planet, it's what plants breathe.
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
With regard to 'global warming' I think that you should be looking for something that creates deserts Aiden, not something that will turn them into rainforests.
I suspect that without CO2 there would be no life at all.

Back to the article...climate change debates are a total waste of time on OLO! Too many non scientific experts :)

There is no relationship between cutting tax rates and wages or productivity.

From 1960 - 2016 the relationship between real wages growth, net productivity growths and statutory corporate tax rates in the US show that the highest growth occurs under the highest tax rates; see https://www.epi.org/publication/cutting-corporate-taxes-will-not-boost-american-wages/

Feel free to discuss!

But our Federal and State politicians work hard every day and try their hardest to make things better for ordinary Australians, don't they?

Aiden if you actually believe in the greenhouse theory, [A pile of garbage any way] one little fact knocks CO2 out of contention to be causing it. In fact it likely to be a cooling factor.

Researchers found a while back that any increase in CO2 led to a corresponding reduction in water vapour, which has a much wider absorbent spectrum for low frequency radiation. In other words if you believe the greenhouse gas theory, it is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Thus more CO2 equals less radiation absorption, & a cooler planet.

Researchers quickly dropped this line of research, as it was very detrimental to their grant applications, & their findings disappeared into no mans land.

I don't believe CO2 has any measurable effect on climate, & the puny amount man produces is, if anything, advantageous in helping get our flora off the starvation diet it has been enduring for centuries, but is basically insignificant in the scheme of things.

Hasbeen,
>Researchers found a while back that any increase in CO2 led to a corresponding reduction in water vapour
What research was that?
If you're referring to what I think you are, scientists found that increasing CO2 resulted in decreased water vapour emissions from transpiration. But water vapour entering the atmosphere is not proportional to water vapour in the atmosphere. For while what you say about water vapour being a much powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 is true, you've missed out one crucial detail: water vapour condenses out very quickly! Thus the amount of water vapour going into the atmosphere only has a short term effect on atmospheric water vapour levels. The long term effects determine how much it can hold, and for that CO2 still has an increasing effect.

Aidan, typical green gooble gook to try to distract from the facts.

It matters not at all, the length of residency that any particular molecule of water vapour in the atmosphere. The fact is that a percentage is displaced by CO2 permanently. Any increase in CO2 means a reduction in atmospheric water vapour.

Hasbeen,
Far from trying to distract from the facts, I'm trying to explain the facts. I'm sorry if you regard it as gobbledegook; try rereading it and if there's anything you still don't understand then tell me and I will try to explain it more clearly.

> The fact is that a percentage is displaced by CO2 permanently.
No, the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM is that a percentage of water vapour is displaced by CO2 permanently. You have not posted any evidence of such a link, and nor is there any credible mechanism for such a relationship. I speculated that you were misinterpreting the results of a study on the effect of CO2 on transpiration - which was a very significant finding, but nowhere near sufficient to invert the overall relationship between water vapour and CO2 in the way you suggest.