Pericles>> 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<<

If that is ipso facto Pericles, then why are non corporate businesses taxed at three times the rate of the corporations........does our government not want them to invest further in their business and create more jobs and pay the plebs plenty?

Not much of an argument, the economies of scale that you proffer. Perhaps when the corporations get big enough the workers can pay them for the right to work........that is the extension of your argument.

'"taxable revenue" does not exist, while "taxable profits" do.'

Interesting point. Most wage earners are taxed on revenue rather than profit.

Transport costs to get to and from work and costs of child care are two items that for many are incurred in order to earn their income with no exemption.

I've known enough others who able to take advantage of a whole lot of loopholes in tax available to the self employed and businesses to be somewhat cynical about a lot of the claims of those supporting the current slug the wage earner approach.

R0bert

Definition, sonofgloin?

>>...why are non corporate businesses taxed at three times the rate of the corporations<<

What is a "non corporate business" in your terminology? And what exactly are the tax rates that you apply to "corporations" and "non corporate business"?

You are becoming increasingly confusing in your defence of the indefensible. What do you mean by this comment, for example?

>>Not much of an argument, the economies of scale that you proffer.<<

Where did I argue economies of scale? In my book, all businesses, large or small, operate along the same lines, and are taxed identically.

A fine point, R0bert.

>>Most wage earners are taxed on revenue rather than profit.<<

On the one hand, every so often a government will try to bring the two rates into synch, in order to avoid precisely the temptation to reduce tax through the intermediation of a company structure. They usually drift apart again when they realize that it impacts employment. As it would.

On the other, giving individuals the ability to offset expenses that are "work-related" opens up another massive can of worms. Except for the Tax Department employees, of course, who would quickly become 70% of the workforce.

Pericles>> In my book, all businesses, large or small, operate along the same lines, and are taxed identically.<<

Sorry to inform you Pericles, but your book is fiction. This is the opening to the supplied link from the ABC SEPT 2014:

"A third of Australia's largest companies are paying a fraction of the full 30 per cent corporate tax rate."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/a-third-of-top-australian-companies-pay-less-than-10pc-tax/5775870

Pericles,supply some facts to back the position you take.

No need, sonofgloin.

>>Pericles,supply some facts to back the position you take.<<

You have supplied all the relevant information yourself:

>>"A third of Australia's largest companies are paying a fraction of the full 30 per cent corporate tax rate."<<

The corporate tax rate is the same for every business, large or small.

Allowable deductions are the same for every business, large or small.

If your point is that our tax laws need adjusting, in order to correct perceived imbalances in the average tax take from different corporations, then say so.

Feel free to then follow up with a proposal as to what adjustments you feel to be necessary. That will help us examine the impact of those changes on both the corporations themselves and the government's budget.

But to do that, you first have to understand the complete lack of logic in your opening post.

Pericles>>But to do that, you first have to understand the complete lack of logic in your opening post.<<

Thanks or your input P,........we aint going nowhere here.