In the 5 years to June 30 2008 Fed government taxation rose from $9853 per capita to $13,451pc, at a rate about twice that of official inflation. Source ABS.

Rudds cash splash and stimulus programmes are designed to take up the slack at a time when banks are less willing to loan and people and business are less willing to go into debt and more inclined to pay off existing debts.

The Rudd deficit this year will be at least $25B and maybe up to $35B. This from a $20B surplus in one year amounts to a possible $55B turnaround in one year. And nobody is talking about the large increase in taxes around the corner to pay for this.

Please note I am not blaming the Rudd govt. for the crisis upon us, merely questioning his economically conservative approach, and whether there are other approaches they could take.

It is estimated that another 500,000 of us will be unemployed(12%) within a year, and some who put the figure considerably higher. Govt outlays will increase again to support these numbers.

My question is as follows; maybe given that deficit spending is infra dig would a $50B decrease in taxation achieve more than an increase in spending? Dumping payroll tax would make employment cheaper. Company tax decreases would help businesses and a couple grand less personal tax each would help us all to pay off mortgages, credit cards etc and potentially leave industry and individuals in a stronger position to pay the increased taxes in the future.

I suspect any decrease in company tax, payroll tax or whatever would go to the company heads and shareholders, and not lead to any noticeable increase in employment, it's the way they seem to operate these days, look at the Banks behaviour of late. Can you honestly see any Board saying.."Oh look, our taxes have gone down, lets hire more people, or increase wages?". Executive bonuses would be a far more likely outcome.

exactly Maximilion

Better to find the poorest of the poor and give it to them. They are the only ones guaranteed to spend every cent and on mostly local goods and services.

Stimulus will not work,What must happen is the cutting of G0ovt spending,Kevin is rattling the socialist heelbarrow

Better to find the poorest of the poor and give it to them. They are the only ones guaranteed to spend every cent and on mostly local goods and services.

Yep, just like the pensioners wasted $15 millon of tax payers money on the pokies before Xmas hey.Fact!

Most poor people are poor through thier own doing.

Sure there are the genuine cases, but seriously, no one can be rich if they work a normal mon-fri 9-5 job.

Then there are the ones who CHOOSE TO HAVE 5 children when they simply can't afford them and they expect someone else to pay.

Then there are the bludgers who just expect everthing for nothing. AND STILL WHINGE!

I don't agree with handing out money but if we have to I recon it's great to see some of the ones who paid the taxes finnaly get something back

Ax for payroll tax. My brother has two restaurants and was considering a third, except, this will force him into the payroll tax bracket which will be a burdon on all three businesses, not just the third.

He currently pays around $800,000 per annum in wages. If he goes to I think 1 mill then he will have to pay an additional % in taxes based on all three businesses.

It's a joke. One gets punished for creating jobs. Go figure hey!

So there goes a possible eight to ten more jobs hey, just like that.

I spoke to a friend of mine yesterday, who operates a small
business working on mining machinery. There is huge demand
for what he does and there is no way he can cope with the
workload.

He could hire a number of people and expand, but he says
it is simply not worth it. Employees rock up and they
all seem to know their list of entitlements, but few
want to actually do too much for the money. So why bother
hiring them?

Australians voted against workchoices it seems, but I think
that one day it might hit them that it was a mistake.
They will need some really high unemployment numbers to
learn the hard way.

Small business will soon hire people, if the work that those
people are doing, is actually making them a profit. If it
is just turning over money, or profits are just going to
keep up with the many claimed entitlements, then many simply
won't bother.

All the cash splashes in the world are not going to change that.

If I was to start another business, which would be easy to do,
it would be a flat rate of so much an hour, all included. If that
is not possible, as I have no surety from customers, I can't give
employees surety, in an ever changing world. So why bother to
take the risk?

Let them all go and work for Worksafe and other Govt organisations
and they can police each other. Let Kevi wear the risk.

Yabby, it's a bit off track but it's a bit of a case of 'here we go again'.

First we had UFD introduced back in the early 90's and it simply stopped small business expantion in its tracks. Irronicly, it was a labor government heading into a reccesion.

There were cases of employers being sued for UFD after sacking staff for stealing.

Given the ground made with the level of small business expansion in the past decade, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to put hurdels in our way now.

I think in all reality there are many labor voters hanging thier heads in shame at the moment but it wan't sink in for some until they loose theri job, car, house, partner and families. This will all happen as financial strain is a real family killer.

I say reward small business for employing by giving tax cuts to them ONLY if they increase their staff numbers. More jobs means expansion which then drives demand. We have seen it in the past decade.

We are the only chance of pulling this nation back on track and they are putting up barriers for us.

Much of the public works that creates jobs does not create revenue, so once these projects are finnished and with little revenue comming in THEN WHAT!

These people have no idear what so ever and we will all pay the price.

There is a great saying 'if it aint brocken then don't fix it'. There is no need to change UFD or increase unionisum in the workplace.

Yabby;off the point but raises an important flaw in our economy.We have too much Govt interference and regulation for Aust to be competitive.We need an overhaul of the legal system ,OH&S and the bureaucracy.The party of incompetence and nepotism is over!

Govt must cut it's spending in all non-productive areas.The NSW Govt had the choice years ago and now are looking at oblivion.

The debt addiction like dug addiction cannot be cured by more of the same.

You talk about government spending.

Did anyone know we are spending $42,000 each and every day to house illigal asylum seekers. Meanwhile we look like doing a back flip on our pensioners and not giving them the full increase as suggested. Of cause it's going somewhere else but I would prefer not to go there as I will be branded as a .... basher again.

Now how do you think we would be treated if we landed ILLEGALLY on their shores. It's just another example of our toothless tiger approach.

At some point we simply have to stop wasting money and free hand-outs is the best place to start.

Although I disagree with the latest stimulis, at least it is rewarding those who have earned money, not those who didn't.

I also say stop giving money to anyone outside of our country. Give them surplus goods instead.

Stop live export and value add instead to create jobs HERE not overseas.

If we don't take action right now and stop wasting money and oppotunities to make money there will simply be nothing left for future generations. After all, we are almost at the point where we have nothing left to sell other than RAW MATERIALS! And that's a joke!

Remember, we are a mere 200 odd years old and have just come through the most proporus decade in our times yet we are broke!

Where did the 'lucky country' go?

If you want to cut anything, cut the 'red tape' involved in employing people. That's a joke in its self!

I will start a new thread and call it 'The cost of employing'. Please join in.

I am not a fan of the government's individual stimulus handouts and think the $900 would have been better pooled for infrastructure than for what will be a small blip on the spending barometer. Or used to fund the overdue pensioner payrise.

Funding of infrastructure is a good thing because it will create and keep jobs. Perhaps the 457 Visas need a rethink too given the propensity for some business to use them to import cheaper staff when there is no difficulty employing local labour. (There was an ACA report on a resort in the Blue Mountains doing just that).

Many people will not spend their $900 but will use it to pay bills or to save, pending more difficult times ahead.

Payroll tax is important given that many of our foreign owned companies do not reinvest necessarily in Australia and profits go overseas. At least payroll tax ensures some of the profits stay here to fund infrastructure. Perhaps the threshold for payroll tax could be increased to make it easer for small-medium business enterprises; I agree with Maximillion that any savings for the big corporates would not mean increases in jobs.

The only way we are going to get through the impending recession is if we pull together and reduce personal greed. Tax cuts to top income earners is not necessary, that will help keep the deficit down and won't affect their spending habits. With interest rates down, is it necessary to give far reaching tax cuts, perhaps only to those at the lower/medium end of income earners.

You can't ask more from governments in terms of better infrastructure without paying for it somewhere along the way.

Cuts to government spending should be well targetted - and not to those government services that will need to gear up to cope with rises in unemployment and access to social services.

Payroll tax is important given that many of our foreign owned companies do not reinvest necessarily in Australia and profits go overseas

Point taken pelican, but surely if a company is Australian owned with local directors there can be an exemption.

Pay roll tax is without doubt the most insane tax ever. Forget the public listed companies, I am talking about small businesses that employ just 20 or so employees. If they go over $1millon in wages, bonuses, leave loading etc they get hit with PRT.

It is dead set a penalty for creating jobs and that, essecialy in these times, is a joke.

It appears that facts stop many posters in their tracks for some reason.

So let's look closer at this insane tax called pay roll tax.

Take your average news agent. Often family owned and more often than not they own several agencies, some of which are sub-agents.

They often pay PRT.

Cafes like the coffe club, they pay PRT.

Mcdonald, one of the highest employers of our youth. Helping us to keep our kids off the streets. These are independantly owned businesses yet they have to pay PRT.

Morgans, a famous sea food outlet. Creates huge job numbers for the area yet they are punnished by PRT.

Why do you think so many construction workers are now contractors?

Now as a worker you would expect that the harder you work the better the reward, and why not, you've earned it.

Well guess what, as an employer, the more succesfull you are and the more staff you employ YOU GET SCREWED!

WHY?

So still nothing hey. What a pitty you have no reasonable comeback hey!

Anyway, there is no reason why you can't slug public listed companies with PRT as it is just another expense before the shareholders get their bit, but I say again, leave the mums, dads and family run businesses alone as it only discourages expansion in many cases.

rehctub
Just because someone might not respond to you immediately does not mean they do not have a comeback.

Some of us have jobs to go to and families to raise and are not on OLO as often as we can to be able to respond to you in the required time limit that you have set for us. :)

Frankly, I think it is pointless to argue with you about industrial relations. Correct me if I have misread you, but you appear to see things only from the employer's point of view.

Can you understand why the union movement grew - due to low wages for very long hours, in some cases children forced to work in coal mines. Can you see why protections might be needed for employees? Why should employers be the only group allowed to have a voice?

I agree with you that we are over-taxed in this country and we have too much red tape. Even the GST which pulls in millions for governments is easily rorted and there are little resources to stop the rorting.

I also agree that payroll tax is a burden for smaller business enterprises but do you really think that reducing it or eradicating PRT will create jobs in those larger business enterprises. I don't think so.

Particularly not in this economic climate where business are more likely to reduce overhead in the event of the threat of reduced spending.

Those who hold the power will rarely make the sacrifices in difficult economic times it will be the lowest paid who will suffer most. Even our illustrious politicians have given themselves a recent payrise despite telling the rest of us to pull our heads in and tighten our belts.

Frankly, I think it is pointless to argue with you about industrial relations. Correct me if I have misread you, but you appear to see things only from the employer's point of view.

Well no, I can see from both sides. My staff work well and get paid and treated accordingly. I have no problem with employees earning their worth, never have.

Can you understand why the union movement grew
I have no problems with the unions being there. I do however object to them trying to protect un-realistic wages and conditions, most of which have been achieved through high growth periods.

PRT. The problem with it is that it stops businesses expanding. Many will not expand due to being on the edge of the PRT threathhold.

As for employer V employee. All I ever want is a fair deal for both. Equal rights would be nice.

Can you understand why the union movement grew - due to low wages for very long hours, in some cases children forced to work in coal mines. Can you see why protections might be needed for employees? Why should employers be the only group allowed to have a voice?

Just a little more on this toppic as I ran out of time yesterday.

What you are reffering to happened decades ago, children working in coal mines etc.

What I am talking about has happened recently, esspecially some of the 'over the top' pay rates and conditions, all caused by an in-balance in the labor field. 'More work than you could poke a stick at' as such. This is what I object to with the unions. Wanting to protect these unrealistic conditions.

All I want as an employer is the same rights that an employee has. If you change your mind or get a better offer then a weeks notice is all that's required.

Now tell me, what is wrong with that?

Now it is no coincidence that our ecconomy boomed once the UFD laws were watered down and the union movement was surpressed.

Many caffes etc WILL CLOSE on weekends and staff WILL LOOSE THEIR JOBS as a result of what Krud and the unions are proposing to do.

Now all the stimulus in the world won't make any difference if you put more hurdles in front of employers, which is what Krud is about to do.

rehctub
Prior to Work Choices cafes weren't closing down and people weren't being laid off left right and centre. The system worked fine and there were very few industrial disputes. Why on earth was Work Choices developed during such prosperous and peaceful times will always baffle me.

There will be job losses due to the financial crisis - that is inevitable but it won't be due to the proposed changes to IR which from what I have seen are not all that disruptive from a business point of view.

You ask for equal rights for employers and employees in regard to termination.

So a boss who might change his mind because someone better comes through the door can just sack someone at will

You may not like the result if you get what you wish for. Can you imagine the insecurity in the economy - on spending - if job security was low and employees knew that at any minute they could be replaced even if they worked as hard as they could.

You may be a fair employer and I am sure you get on with your staff but not all employers are fair. Some may use such insecurity in the job market to get away with unpaid overtime, change in working conditions, no breaks, no attention to OH&S with the potential to cause a fatal accident (say on a building site).

What you suggest would in my view cause chaos and unrest in the end and that is never good for employers or employees.

I agree with you about some of the red tape and how much time it takes and the cost to small business. This is an area where governments can butt out a bit more.

You ask for equal rights for employers and employees in regard to termination.

So a boss who might change his mind because someone better comes through the door can just sack someone at will

Yes, point taken, but can't an employee just up and leave if and when it suits? This is my issue, not job security. Security must work for both sides.

Take an enginering plant. Say they are the middle of a major job and say they employ 5 tradesmen. The deadline is looming, they may even be behind. Then, two of the five hand in their notice, then what!

During the recent mining boom this was a fact. Often guys would go to the pub, meet up with a mine worker and never return to work as they had a chance to earn big bucks driving a water truck or similar.

This is still my point. I don't have a problem with job security, never have, it's just that security should work both ways. But it doesn't!

I would think that an employer could find another employee pretty quickly particularly in this job market where people are losing jobs because of the current economic climate. I understand the frustration in having to train another person and taking a punt on someone new.

Whereas an employee who is terminated may find it much more difficult to find another job.

Nothing in life is ever perfectly equal, sometimes there are good reasons for this, other times I guess it might be a case of choosing one side over the other. Without some rules in employment, workers would really be up a creek without a paddle.

I agree that a week's notice is probably not enough time to give to an employer, I am not sure what would be fair given that another employer is waiting for the person to start the new job as well. There may be contingencies if the person cannot start the new job within a period of time they lose the position. But I get your point.