It doesn’t much matter what the rate of company tax is. The real taxpayer is the shareholder, not the company. Company tax works like a withholding tax. If the shareholder’s personal tax rate is above the company tax rate they pay extra tax on profits they receive; if below, they get a refund. Only foreign shareholders actually pay tax on company profits at the company tax rate.

You can be as defensive as you like, sonofgloin, the fact remains that there is absolutely no correlation between the facts of tax collection, and your conclusion that the burden falls unequally on the workers.

>>...regardless of your profit and loss calculations that figure was taxed at three times it current rate 40 years ago.<<

But that is a good thing, from the economy's point of view. These days, more of the company's revenue can be used to pay more and more workers, rather than giving it to the government.

The reality is that wherever extract your tax, that money goes into consolidated revenue. The difference is that when you tax companies, that money isn't available to develop and grow the business that employs people and creates value within the economy. Instead, it is extracted from the productive economy to pay workers in the "public service", whose only objective is to spend as much of taxpayers' money as possible.

And you do need to do some more homework on corporate taxation, too.

>>I do have a "working" understanding of corporate tax. When the board meets they are presented with an EBIT figure (earnings before interest and tax. This figure is minus all fixed costs and liabilities to be paid that current financial year. Then they are presented with the taxable revenue figure<<

Actually, it is profits that are taxed, not revenue.

Pericles>> You can be as defensive as you like, sonofgloin, the fact remains that there is absolutely no correlation between the facts of tax collection, and your conclusion that the burden falls unequally on the workers.<<

Defensive Pericles....it is an opinion forum.

>>Actually, it is profits that are taxed, not revenue.<<

Where do you think profits come from?........from revenue Pericles as I said “taxable revenue figure.”

There is no ambiguity in the percentages I quoted, no matter how much you cry “consolidated revenue” or voice some ridiculous extrapolation that because the corporations create jobs that are taxed they are by default paying their share of tax.

If you are paying one third of the tax you were paying 30 years ago you are keeping a larger portion of the taxable income.

Opinions are opinions, sonofgloin.

>>Defensive Pericles....it is an opinion forum.<<

But facts are also facts.

>>Where do you think profits come from?........from revenue Pericles as I said “taxable revenue figure.”<<

Of course they do. But - as I pointed out - "taxable revenue" does not exist, while "taxable profits" do.

>>There is no ambiguity in the percentages I quoted<<

I wasn't suggesting ambiguity. I was pointing out a fallacious argument - your suggestion that because firms are taxed less than they used to be, this is somehow disadvantageous to the workers. When in fact the lower tax rate allows firms to a) hire more people and b) pay them more. That is a fact, not an opinion.

>>If you are paying one third of the tax you were paying 30 years ago you are keeping a larger portion of the taxable income<<

"Keeping", sonofgloin? Where's your evidence that they are keeping it, as opposed to using it in their business?

From your comments, I would surmise that you have never actually been in business yourself.

That's an opinion, of course.

Pericles, if you believe there is any correlation between the amounts of tax paid by Fred, who employs a dozen people in his business and the multinationals, I have nothing to add that will sway you.

Regarding your comment that the corporate repay the nation in wages and employment, did you know that the global miners pay less tax in Australia than in any of their other global operations........and a fat lot of good it did us? Some despot in Africa hammered out a deal that gets more tax from them than we do.

Depends what you mean by correlation, sonogloin.

>>Pericles, if you believe there is any correlation between the amounts of tax paid by Fred, who employs a dozen people in his business and the multinationals, I have nothing to add that will sway you.<<

The volume is different, of course. So no "correlation" there.

But the principle, that the more taxation a company has to pay relative to its profits, the less is available to expand the business, employ more people, and to pay those people more wages, remains completely sound and unarguable. So much so, that I wonder why you are spending so much energy refuting it.

>>Regarding your comment that the corporate repay the nation in wages and employment, did you know that the global miners pay less tax in Australia than in any of their other global operation<<

Entirely different topic. But have you noticed how the miners have cut back on employment recently - some towns are now practically empty, and house prices/home rentals have collapsed. So even when they are (allegedly) rorting the tax system, they still employ more people, who make more money, who pay more tax etc. etc.