Ah I see this thread has gone the way of all things, the left beating their breasts, demanding that employers employ Australian workers on Australian conditions and according to Australian Union demands.

One would think, to read come of these posts that workers owned the factory or manufacturing businesses in which they work.

One would think they shared in the risks of commerce.

One would think employers were merely there to provide a nursery playground.

And bugger the “economic viability” of the business.

Billie “the australian community who has lost the taxation on the Blundstone profits as the company will have set up an overseas parent in a low taxing regime like Nauru to take their profit”

Does the “Australian Community” or do individuals own the company?

Should Australia dictate to Nauru the nature of their tax regime or should the “Australian Community” accept lower tax assessments from business to stay here?

Maybe the employment terms and conditions which the unions have demanded be retained slice through the commercial viability of the business case?

One of these days the left might come to understand, Australia is on the path of “free trade”. The “Protectionist model” had a good run but, like big government and union interference, people have rejected it.

People like cheaper consumer goods. Why should they be forced to pay more because of government policy?

The issue with current accounts is simple. It is private debt.
Private debt is capped by the amount a creditor is prepared to lend. Public debt is not. Public debt creates inflation by government spending on our behalf. Private debt is people spending on their own behalf and bearing the consequences of it.

Whilst private individuals borrowing may be foolhardy, we are not a nanny state and everyone is entitled to arrange their finances to suit themselves.

My daughter was delighted when advised her earnings were enough to secure debt on a new investment property in her own name. She was comfortable funding the $100 - $200 a week it will cost her.
Her borrowing,
her debt,
her opportunity,
her responsibility,
her choice

My analysis of Blundstone's actions was a strictly Economics 101 microeconomic treatment. If that analysis makes me left wing, so be it.

What will make me revolutionary is floating the idea that if corporations are taxed on their turnover rather than their profit then the corporations might pay a fairer share of the costs of providing the infrastructure within which they operate. Making companies pay tax on their turnover rather than permitting them to take their profits offshore makes outsourcing of manufacture less attractive.

The Blundstone board has previously made statements that the reduction in tariffs had reduced their ability to operate profitably.

The question that still remains - how can you sell goods and services to customers who have no money? When you retrench whole factories of people they lose their income and can't purchase your goods and services.

Col, can I take out a mortgage from you with no income? You must be the last businessman in Australia who pays income tax.

Why do the large miners want employees on contract. If the mine is closed, because the commodity price drops, then the subcontractors don't get redundancy pay. Mining is inherently dangerous and mining companies are self insurers. They can save themselves money by making the individual responsible for their own workers compensation insurance. Mining is so dangerous that traditionally miners were unable to secure mortgages.

Billie “turnover rather than their profit then the corporations might pay a fairer share of the costs of providing the infrastructure within which they operate.”

Now what a good idea, maybe we could call it VAT or, I know, better still, GST.

As for the other silliness, it is simple, the costs which contribute to the generation of income always have been deemed a deductible expense. Even the infrastructural costs are recouped as depreciation over the time of their useful life. If you mean the cost of public infrastructure, I guess it is simple

Company premises pay rates
Companies pay for power and other utilities.

Your suggestion that they are “favoured” by the nature of deductibility of business expenses is laughable.

“The Blundstone board has previously made statements that the reduction in tariffs had reduced their ability to operate profitably.”

That basically translates to “the cost structure of operating in Australia does not justify continuing because of competition form imports”. It sounds like they would have benefited from more flexible work practices and fewer state taxes – eg. Payroll tax. Do Chinese companies pay payroll tax? I doubt it!

Billie, anyone can have a mortgage provided they have a quality asset to secure it against, even if they have no income (hint reverse mortgages).

The laws pertaining to mortgage finance have become more flexible. The rules which you claim, where miners could not get a mortgage because they were miners would not apply today and might even be illegal (not sure but anti-discrimination legislation may well apply). Same too, women and people over the age of 65 can still get mortgages.

“how can you sell goods and services to customers who have no money?”
One door closes and another opens. Check out how many new jobs have been created in the past 10 years and then compare it to the previous ten years, when Labor fiddle as the economy was reduced to ashes in the “recession we had to have”.

Oh I have insurance for workers compensation and income protection. pay it every year and it is a tax deduction

I seem to recall billie that you said somewhere that you do not work for the government, but your statements here are straight out of the Department of "I've no idea how businesses run".

To start a business, you have to have capital. Most businesses start small, therefore by definition their owners first go into debt in order to kick the thing off. When I started my first business, I also went nearly a year without paying myself, which put a lot of strain on the family as they watched us go deeper into the red every week that passed.

Once you are through that phase, there is the constant battle to remain profitable. Some of the battle is the result of the natural coming-and-going of employees - after all, they have an inalienable right to walk out on you whenever they feel like it. Some is induced by government actions and bureaucratic requirements... the tax office, ASIC, State Revenue (oh yes, the state governments extract a 6% tax on your payroll every month, regular as clockwork - and send round auditors anytime they feel like it). That's all whether or not you have sold a single widget... I could go on, but unless you are familiar with business basics (as opposed to "Economics 101 microeconomic[s]") it will be meaningless to you.

When you take all this into account you might just start to understand why business owners sometimes decide that the hassle of trying to keep a bunch of (relatively) overpaid bootmakers in employment is just not worth the candle.

Frankly, if I was them I would simply sell the whole business to a bunch of overseas financiers and be done with it. Mincom just did exactly that, despite having taken the odd taxpayers' shilling along the way.

And where oh where did this notion that "corporations [should be] taxed on their turnover rather than their profit" come from?

How would that benefit a) the unemployed and b) the country? Any business that operates on wafer-thin margins (i.e. most small businesses) would go straight to the wall.

"The question that still remains - how can you sell goods and services to customers who have no money?"

Billie clearly people have money, or Harvey Norman sales etc would
not be at record levels. Manufacturing these days is not a large
% of GDP, services are. Besides, alot of it is specialised,like
Austal ships, producing catamarans, they are booming and screaming
for staff. Low tech, high labour commodity products like footware
are better produced where labour is cheap, consumers benefit massively.

Of course companies prefer contractors. Its so hard to dismiss dud
staff, so expensive with all the redundancy payments, I too would
avoid hiring them if at all possible. Today business is uncertain,
so employment is uncertain. Thats the nature of our world. Only
Govts, with monopoly powers to tax, or a few monopoly businesses,
can afford to provide certainty.

Right now its not just WA that is booming. Most of the meat industry
around the country is screaming for staff. In Queensland in the
North, things are booming too, due to mining. I tried to buy a
machine from a company in Toowoomba recently. He could quote me
a price, but could not supply this year, as alot of his staff have
gone into the mining industry there, where coal etc is booming.

Billie, the world changes, get used to it. 12 years ago, I was
the first one around here on the internet. People laughed at it,
I figured it would grow. Look at the many jobs that it now provides!

If you had a million $, would you invest it in Australian manufacturing of footware?

Col_Rouge I know you are a great proponent of small government and the right to be left alone but what sort of society do you want to conduct your business and live in?

Do you want to find tutors to educate your children or are you happy to concede that the state licensing of registered teachers is probably a better process than you can do?

Are you happy to pay a toll every time you drive on EastLink or any other privately built road?

Do you want the state to test and license car drivers of a requisite skill level or do you want to play dodge-em on Whitehorse Road?

Could your businesses run efficiently with no gas, electricity, sewerage or do you have your own rain water tanks and dispose of your own waste?

Do you want to defend your property yourself or are you happy that the police deter crime most of the time?

How do you know that banks will honour the mortgage contracts that you write? Victoria has seen banks collapse in the 1890s and 1990s. In the 1880s half of Melbourne starved but in 1990 the bank collapse was underwritten but in the Pyramid Building Society collapse many people lost money?

If, God Forbid, you or members of your family are injured in an accident do you want to face a user-pays Accident & Emergency like the USA or the current Australian system? Of course the American G-d-botherers will keep you alive and suck all your assets out of you without allowing you to declare bankruptcy or stop treatment.

Apologies Politics 191