I heard the tail end of a news grab this morning from a minister (I missed his name) explaining that even though (some) decision that was made is detrimental to Australia we were legally bound by it because of a “Free Trade” agreement. Our governments both left and right need to fight for our sovereign rights to remain debt free and reinvest our money in Australia.

Without any alarmist rhetoric it is notable that Australia’s debt level is rising, although remaining well below debt levels in other advanced economies, Australia still has a Government Debt to GDP ratio of 33.88%, an all time high.

At present the Future Fund and some significant financial assets returns the government enough to still have a gross debt, but the net debt position is negligible.

Many other advanced economies are likely to be weak into the indefinite future; our government needs to ensure we do not go down the same road. It needs to stabilise our government balance sheet while it is still possible to do so.

How do you accomplish that without ownership of a profit generating entity? To begin with you stop selling off assets. Over the past fifty years governments went from owning profit generating business in key segments of the economy to divesting these interests to the private sector, who are now making profits.

We need to reinvest in our own production and manufacturing segments. A good place to start would be the natural gas segment. Agribusiness is another sector with a future and we also need a peoples owned Bank. We went from having people owned State and Commonwealth banks to no banks in only twenty years.

Is there any other way out of our situation given the government has already raised the retirement age and cut funding to the states because of an aging population and a dwindling income?

We simply have too many who rely on the tax payers for support, remembering that only about 20% of all income earners actually pay more in taxes than they draw in welfare.

Either we find a more efficient, fairer tax system, one that taxes everyone, companies/trusts/foreign corporations fairly, while rewarding success, as opposed to punishing it as the current system does, or we wind back our lifestyles to where we all live within our means and able body non contributors get the very basics and nothing more.

We must also put an immediate halt to anyone wanting to immigrate unless they have something substantial to bring to the table as our immigrants of late, generally speaking, have fed off our system, rather than contributed to it and we have been stupid enough to allow it to happen.

Finally, if anyone thinks we are in trouble now, just remember we are not having to defend ourselves as yet because if/when we ever have to we will have a new prospective on debt.

In my view a financial transaction tax is something that needs to be looked closely at but for some reason nobody wants to go there.

sonofgloin,

We have a "Net" debt to GDP ratio of around 17% (16.9 last figure I saw)

We had a Net debt to GDP ratio of 10% at the time of the last election.

So if, as Rehctub asserts, 80% of Australians are net recipients of government money and we somehow reduce this, as Rehctub seems to imply would help, how many *more* sausages will the remaining 20% buy from the local fully-trained butcher? Will this increase in sales fund the increase in wages that qualified and capable butchers truly deserve? Careful what you wish for.

Rusty.

Close government departments and sell off their buildings. Inner-city property can go a long way toward repaying the debt.

Sell off the parliament buildings as well: conduct parliament sittings via video-conference and electronic votes (thus also an end to politicans' air-fares).

Cut off completely all perks of the remaining public-servants and politicians (sell off their public-funded cars as well).

Stop all foreign aid: if Australians wish to help others, they can do so through charity.

Make Christmas Island an independent country, then stop patrolling the distant seas near Indonesia for refugees. Also withdraw from the refugee-convention and close down all offshore detention centres.

Turn all Medicare and PBS payments into HECS-like loans, so that those who can afford to pay their own medical expenses but choose not to, will have to refund what they received either when they earn enough or from their estate.

I've made my position clear on this issue before.

Democracy is a fantasy and they don't keep their election promises and aren't accountable to anyone.
Its 'Us' and 'Them'.
If they make the laws for us, then we must make the laws for them.
Doesn't anyone get it?
There is NO balance of power and therefore there is NO democracy.

Anyway, as mentioned previously, we need to build a PRISON for the politicians when they mess up.
To show em' we mean business and keep them honest.

I told you all this during the Bronwyn Bishop 'Choppergate' affair.
I told you if we didn't stand together and do something then next time it would be our fault for doing nothing when the writing was on the wall that something needed to change.

- But no one listened, and it wasn't long till I pointed out the Cambodian deal which was $55million for 2 refugees.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/blow-to-australias-55-million-cambodia-deal-as-two-more-refugees-reportedly-leave-20160308-gnda8q.html

So now I find out the estimated cost to resettle 12,000 Syrians is $900mil, $75000 per person.
They may as well just give a couple with 2 kids a $300,000 welcome gift, am I wrong?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/government-to-spend-900-million-dollars-resettling-refugees/7030866

But here's the one that takes the cake.

13.5 BILLION (over 4yrs) on unpaid HECS debts, where students never completed their studies, and didn't even get any qualifications.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-to-tie-hecs-repayments-to-family-income-20160408-go1gml.html

How much is foreign aid costing now $8-$9bln?

If you people can't see where the problem lies, how do you ever expect to fix the problem?
Honestly...

Has anyone here heard of 'Cloward and Piven'?
Please look it up, and learn something, it might be appropriate here.
The other options are 'incompetence' or 'treason'.

I forgot Centrelink also now pays people (thousands) to get and keep a job.

Sonofgloin, (and anyone else)
WE ARE NOT a sovereign nation.
WE ARE a debt nation.
(Which is also basically all the Future Fund represents, unpaid debt.)
The TPP is a corporate fascist boot on out throats.
Corporations can now sue the government if it passes laws that stand in the way of their corporate profits.
Therefore we have no sovereignty.

The simple answer is NO.

There are a whole bunch of economic, political and historical factors which have come into play over the past thirty years which have resulted in irreparable damage to what was once a developing nation state. Australia is now no more than a lackey of China and has virtually lost any control over its own destiny.

Sell Queensland to a large populous and wealthy, but as yet unnamed state, to the north of Australia, a people who like rice. The price tag should be some trillions, L J Hooker can work that out on a 10% deposit, 30 day settlement. We can even throw in about 4.5 million coolies to serve as gofers for the 100 million new settlers from that as yet unnamed state to the north of Australia.

Dear Paul1405,

Sounds like a precursor to China's ongoing backdoor invasion of Australia. But I don't think China will want to pay out trillions of dollars for something that they can take by stealth.

Sonofgloin,

Sorry to disappoint you but the role of the Future Fund is to ensure Superannuation liabilities for members of the Commonwealth Super Scheme, being current and retired members of the Commonwealth Public Service and politicians.

Costello failed to set aside the standard annual payments for several years (to cook the books) and had to sell Telstra to pay off his own debt.

It has nothing at all to do with the aged pension or anything else.

We have too much government; too much borrowing; too much spending; too many feel-good schemes on borrowed money (NDIS & GONSKI) two of them); too much foreign aid; too much welfare; a stupid 'refugee'intake costing us billions, with another 12,000 on the way we did not have to volunteer to take.

On top of that, we are importing too many things that we should be making ourselves, and helpiing out China and other low-wage/cost countries with ridiculous 'free trade agreements' that do not benefit us. Just as deadly, we continue to vote in idiots who don't have a clue what they are doing. 80% of the the Australian population deserves the current situation because they are just as greedy and prodigal as the morons they vote for.

Mr Opinion, you are very astute. I didn't think anyone would have guessed China from those vague clues I gave.

We tried to sell the whole of the joint to the Japanese in the 1960's for the bargain basement price of only a few billion, and a house swoop, they move here, we move there. They had popped in during the 1940's for a look, and liked what they saw.

But alas, the Yanks reminded us that they owned the joint and we were only tenants, so no sale. The Brits objected saying if anyone owned the joint it was them, a property developer of theirs who's name I think was Arthur dropped in 1788 and finding the joint was VP (vacant possession), needed work, the house boys living here hadn't done much to improve the place in 40,000 years. Reminded the lads that their man the real estate agent Jamie Cook had picked up the place cheap in 1770, and they had been gazumped, but all was not lost for the local lads, Arthur did offer them cheap digs in British Antarctica for 2 weeks rent up front and 4 weeks bond. Unfortunately, since none of the lads had held a paying job in 40,000 years the boys couldn't come up with the dosh. So they have been left on the outer ever since.

There is also a somewhat erroneous claim to ownership by the Dutch, Claiming there man Abe Tassie was driving by in about 1640, didn't see any lights on, couldn't hear anyone speaking English, French or Spanish, so assume the locals could be Dutch and claimed the joint for Dutch and all the little Dutch, very cute bunch those Dutch, with their clogs and windmills.

Dear Paul1405,

What I'm wondering is what the impact will be when the South China Sea War breaks out. They can forget about the debt and start counting the dead.

Poirot>>sonofgloin,

We have a "Net" debt to GDP ratio of around 17% (16.9 last figure I saw)

We had a Net debt to GDP ratio of 10% at the time of the last election.<<

“Australia recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 33.88 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2014. Government Debt to GDP in Australia averaged 21.20 percent from 1989 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 33.88 percent in 2014 and a record low of 9.70 percent in 2007. Government Debt to GDP in Australia is reported by the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM).”

Poirot, this is the site I got the numbers from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp

First we should send back all those Kiwis over here costing us a fortune. Then deport anyone who has been here more than 3 years who is still receiving any kind of welfare.

Just that should get us back on track.

Crusty, if we get rid of the current tax system, and replace it with a TT then everyone will have so much more to spend in their weekly pay packet.
It stands to reason that the more people have to spend, the more they will spend and what better way to stimulate our economy. Even the big end or those profit shifting could not escape this tax, but for some reason our law makers wont go there, wont even give it an good look into.

As for butchers wages, wages are a percentage of turnover and as turnover increases, so too do wages. The trouble is there are so many additions to wages, like penalty rates, super, work cover, redundancy, the list goes on. So when you add all these to wages, wages become very high, but unfortunately not so much for the wage earner.

Y. while I don't have a problem with medicare, I do think self induced medical conditions should not be subsidised by the tax payer.

"What I'm wondering is what the impact will be when the South China Sea War breaks out" Mr Opinion, your concerns are unwarranted, stop wondering.

Any action by the Chinese in the South China Sea, shall be treated as a violation of Australian sovereignty, and an act of war. We shall unilaterally declare war on China, forming a new Coalition of The Willing comprising Fiji, Kiribati, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, and us of course Australia in command. The Kiwi's can join in if they are not busy with rugby on the day. We shall immediately mobilise the third AIF under General Monash, and I fully expect, with some confidence, our brave troops shall be landing in Beijing within 24 hours, depending on the availability of seats for a group booking on China Air.

Mr Opinion I hope I have been able to address your fears and concerns on this matter.

Acting Field Marshal Paul1405.

Rehctub, Your first comment revolved upon the "point" that "only about 20% of all income earners actually pay more in taxes than they draw in welfare".

Unless your precious transaction tax makes the 80% pay more than currently, it serves no purpose. If it means the 80% pay more tax, then imagining that they will have more money to spend is not as obvious as you think. Nor is reducing the tax burden on your 20% going to make them buy more of your product. They are already eating well and probably unwilling to slide into gluttony just to humour your economic imagination. They might buy more holidays, but that won't help you.

Perhaps you should direct your ire on the 1% who dodge taxes at every turn, spend the vast majority of it overseas and whose interests are further from yours than any hippie in Nimbin.

Rusty.

Dear Paul1405,

I've been sent an email to advise that Niall Ferguson is giving a presentation at the Sydney Opera House at 7:30pm on Sunday 22 May.

I'm sure he will have lots of alarming things to say about the upcoming South China Sea War and the ramifications for Australia wrt the ChAFTA, the unprecedented Chinese immigration to Australia, and the future of ANZUS.

I hope all of my fellow Sinophobes can make it along.

Mr Opinion, If we don't laugh we cry, so forgive my flippant humor on what is in the words of a former leading Oz poly Andrew Peacock;

"A---VERY----serious---matter!" as he often said.

Once more please forgive me;

As a fellow "Chinaphobe", no road would be too long, no mountain too high, no river too deep, to keep me from attending Mr Ferguson's oratory at the opera house. Unfortunately that night, I have a pre booking for one at the 'Golden Dragon', where they serve the best 'chop suey' this side of Shanghai, naturally you understand that I would not like to miss out on world class chop suey with a side order of 'dim sim'. Any chance Fergo could reschedule for the following evening, I have nothing much on except attending my only daughters wedding on that night, its not that important, uncle Bob could give her away, I could give it a miss, and pop on down to Fergo's talk, and probably be back in time for the speeches. What do you think? Its all win win with me.

Montgomery's rules
we must first be clear about certain rules of war.
Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.

I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives, and an army fighting there would be engulfed by what is known as the Ming Bing, the people's insurgents.

Hi Robert,

Very cunning - raise your own question, 'What about invading China ?' and then answer it with a carefully considered "No'.

As would the rest of the world, if they were asked.

So who else, on OLO or indeed in the world, has suggested landing armies in China ? Although, of course, the more we talk about something like this, the more the Chinese can use it as a pretext for 'anticipatory retaliation' against 'foreign aggressors' like the Philippines or Vietnam.

Is that what you have been told to do, Robert ? You need to be a bit more subtle :)

Cheers,

Joe

Just imagine how big the debt will become if Australia has to commit to war over the South China Sea fiasco. Only question really is which side will Australia decide to join, China or the US.

Will Australia go with the money it's got tied up in the ChAFTA and join China or will it continue to support the US? And remember Australia has a very large Chinese minority who will want the government to side with their ancestral homeland. This could be an election loser for a government which decides to support the US against China.

Amazing stuff. This is the sort of stuff that makes history interesting.

The South China Sea issue is one we should keep our nose out of.
If the US wants a war with China, let it have one, but we should have NO part of it.

I WILL NOT support this country in its efforts to stir up China, or any of its other stupid puppet foreign policy agendas.
I honestly don't give a crap about what the Chinese do with the sea on their doorstep.

Firstly I don't see how it affects us.
Secondly I don't see how getting involved benefits us.
Finally, the risk of taking a side is too great if one side decides that push should come to shove.

* If events were to spiral out of control, then our greatest position would be to have remained neutral.

There is nothing good to be gained for our nation by getting involved in the South China Sea issue.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Unfortunately Australia does not have a real choice in this matter.

If it stays neutral the US will see it as a slap in the face and will withdraw its protection of Australia if Australia is invaded by China.

Conversely, the Chinese will see it as supporting China's claim over the South China Sea and that Australia is validating Chinese aggression against the US and the nations around the rim of the South China Sea.

If Turnbull returns from his trip to Beijing this week waving a piece of paper over his head and claiming that China has no other territorial claims outside of the South China Sea then I suggest you start running for the hills.

My view is that China is intent on absorbing SE Asia and Australia into its expanding empire and that nations in the western Pacific should support the US in stopping it in its tracks and force China to dismantle its militarisation of the South China Sea.

If you have ever heard of a little event called World War 2 you will know of the consequences that came from the failure of the US and its allies in stopping Hitler in his tracks. Do you want to see this happen again, but in your own back yard.

You'll have a lot more to worry about than just debt!

loudmouth: NOBODY tells me what to do. Ever.

Hey Mr Opinion,
You've brought up too many topics for me to address in one reply.
World Wars, Hitler...

Whilst I'm open to your thoughts that China wishes to expand its territory, I wouldn't give credence to the idea until they act on these plans your alleging and invade another nation.
Until then I can only treat this claim as baseless rhetoric (nothing personal) and the equivalent of beating war drums, which I see as unnecessary and actually drawing us closer to war, one in which we have no possibility of winning.

One point you failed to acknowledge is that the US can't save us from a nuclear armed China with a 200 million strong army and a military alliance with Russia.
If push comes to shove we're on the losing team - do you get that?

I'm not certain China truly wants to aggressively expand its territory or make war, or whether its just reacting to the US's own military strategy of expanding bases and missile capabilities in nations surrounding China.

There's always 2 sides to every story, and the people are always lied to about the real reasons for wars.

We need nuclear subs that can stay on the bottom for months with nuclear strike capabilities as a deterrent and missile defense at home such as the S500 to even be capable of taking down modern weapons.
I doubt the US can even protect itself against these types of threats and its far behind Russia in the electronic warfare game.

The issue about supporting the US from my point of view is complicated because of whether or not its a good idea to continually back US foreign policy, given the mess they've gotten themselves into financially and the need to make war in other nations to support the petro-dollar, their aggressive Neocon liberal interventionist strategy of regime change in other nations and their imperial "American Exceptionalism" and Brzezinski type attitudes to foreign policy against Russia and China.

So its not as simple as you imply.
I won't support our nation being a pawn in someone else's stupid game.

RC, a tt is a very small tax on every financial transaction, the exact same % paid by every single person who spends money electronically.

Furthermore, it taxes money not people and well tax the 1% just as it will the remaining 99%.

No more income tax returns needed ( that's why accountants hate it) and no getting out of paying your fair share of tax, unless o e uses cash but that's a very small amount on the broad scale of things.

While it may not be the answer, pussy footing around like we are is definitely not the answer.

Of cause the big losers will be the non workers, but, with all that extra cash circulating around there are bound to be plenty of jobs as well as the economy will boom.

I just wish the govenment

Rache>> Sorry to disappoint you but the role of the Future Fund is to ensure Superannuation liabilities for members of the Commonwealth Super Scheme,
It has nothing at all to do with the aged pension or anything else<<

Thanks Rasch, you didn’t disappoint me. I know what the Future Fund is, it is 120 billion dollars on the positive side of the ledger, and that’s what I used it for. Whether it is earmarked to support the superannuants or not it is a positive balance. The mention of the aged pension in this discussion is relevant.......do you think the government would have raised the age threshold if it had the funds to support it?

Rehctub, I understand the proposed mechanics. What I have not read in any past proposal for it nor your own is anything that would make it capable of what is claimed.

Straight off, what "small percentage" applied only to actual transfers would replace normal taxation on an average income?

Secondly, it places the power of taxation largely in the hands of banks (whose fees you already protest) with the added obfuscation of a further mandatory tax behind which they can invisibly mulct the commonwealth with a "handling fee".

You claim it only taxes money, not people. What it taxes is the need to spend money, which relates directly to the needs of people. Obviously someone who has to spend most or all of their income will be paying a higher proportion of their total income than someone who only has to spend a tiny fraction of their income. If you think that constitutes a "fair share" of tax then I cannot agree with you.

Why on earth would you presume that the 1% will not dodge it? Simply using normal bookkeeping and only "transferring" outstanding residual balances between entities (like holding companies and subsidiaries) at rare intervals ensures that many otherwise taxable transfers are avoided.

Glad you're happy to pay the dole to those out-of work accountants, but you're not are you? Think how much more they'll contribute to the economy after you've ejected them from their make-work. Better hope you're not similarly ejected...

Yes, it *is* time to stop pussyfooting around. The first step is putting a withholding tax on overseas transfers that is equal to the company tax rate, and only refund to the value of documented tax receipts showing proper tax at destination. Transfers to tax-havens should simply be taxed at the maximum rate just like someone without a TFN. Ignoring tax havens is no longer a naive act of good faith, it is now simple incompetence.

Your suggestion to reduce subsidy to non-workers may not work. Reducing welfare won't increase your sales, just ALDI's, and reducing middle-class subsidies probably won't sell more artisanal cuts either.

Rusty

Rusty, do you honestly think big business will stay here if they are forced to pay 30 cents in the dollar? I don't.

You have to look at the whole picture here and take into account the amount of taxes they generate, not just what they pay. We already provide a very expensive, highly regulated trading place to do business remember.

I guess we will never know unless some government actually goes after them, but to be honest, I'm not prepared to take that gamble because I'm happy with what they bring to the table and cant imagine life without them.

Yeah that's the problem.
In today's global environment companies shop around for whichever nation is offering the best deal on corporate tax, and countries are undercutting other countries to get those jobs and businesses into their economies.

As a result companies end up paying little tax and the middle class is left to take up the slack.

Rehctub,

Yeah, standard company tax rates are a bit too much aren't they? I guess they just don't have the viability of your own business. You have an inordinate amount of respect for businesses that don't have the backbone to meet requirements you yourself cannot avoid.

I imagine you similarly respect the achievements of Lance Armstrong?

*I* think they make plenty, that company tax is well within their capacity, and they are happy to take any further donations till someone calls their bluff.

If your weak sisters at the big end want to chuck a hissy and abandon their operation, leases, plant, customer base, workforce etc, so be it. It gets auctioned off to someone willing to operate a profitable business on local tax terms. Terms that support good established infrastructure, educated workforce (with reasonable healthcare to maintain productivity), low crime, and moderately consistent appealable courts that protect them from damaging crimes. I understand that many of our resources are unmatched, and unlikely to get less valuable.

What "transaction Tax" rate would replace current tax collections? Bet it's not as small as you think.

Rusty.

so the challenge is simple arm chair, chase them away ad see how we fare.

Take the top companies that pay less than a calculated 30 cents in the dollar, and remove all their revenues, taxes collected and see where we end up. Of cause add all those employed by them to the unemployment list while you're at it.

No challenge at all Rehctub,

Just enabling compliance with existing law by the simple administrative method of adjusting withholdings on overseas transfers. Clearly identified by the tax commissioner as the current weak spot.
They won't abandon, and you are catastophisiing.

Speaking of armchairs, How about your suggestion? What transaction tax will extract the same tax as currently might be collected? Use an average wage as an example.
You have also not explained how taxing the poor more, or helping less will increase the economy. Bit hard?

Rusty

Rehctub>> I guess we will never know unless some government actually goes after them, but to be honest, I'm not prepared to take that gamble because I'm happy with what they bring to the table and cant imagine life without them.<<

Butch your submissive position on this is disappointing. You don’t have to image what life would be without corporations.......you have experienced it, a time when a butcher could put up a shingle and be completive enough to make a living.

The average global tax paid by corporations in the 1960’s was over 45%.........right now it is below 15%, if the bean counters can not manipulate their books to read revenue neutral..........that you can’t imagine life without bloodsuckers who dominate a market segment, chase small players out of the market and pay no tax to the nation that supports them is nothing short of betrayal to your socio economic class.

Hi SonofGloin,

The Bernie Sanders in me says increase the corporate tax rate to whatever the highest rate is in the world. That will show 'em. To hell with the consequences, like capital flight, loss of jobs, urban decrepitude. Boy, that felt good.

The Utter Opportunist in me says to drop the corporate tax altogether, keep as much business, i.e. economic activity, in Australia, as possible, therefore jobs, which would increase the income tax revenue for the government, reduce costs, and keep as many people as possible gainfully employed. Perhaps lower corporate taxes might flow on to higher wages or more put into R. & D., I don't know.

As an ex-Marxist, I always ask myself 'What would the workers want ?'

Joe

There must be a reason why no one will look at it Arm Chair, not even a hint of a look, a bit sad considering all options are on the table as they say.

Loudmouth>> The Bernie Sanders in me says increase the corporate tax rate to whatever the highest rate is in the world. That will show 'em. To hell with the consequences, like capital flight, loss of jobs, urban decrepitude.<<

Joe unfortunately both Capitalism and Communism have the same flaw, the nature of mans need for security via the accumulation of wealth and power, and that isn’t going away.

You quite rightly sight capital flight, job security and urban decrepitude as issues if Corporations leave the market. All of these things have been visited on us since the Corporatisation of manufacturing and services via legislation and Free Trade Agreements taking hold in the 1980’s.

In the heart of capitalist American cities we find decimated suburbs, unemployment and homelessness due to manufacturing moving to cheaper bases in the second and third world and sovereign economic protectionism of the economy outlawed by legislation.

Before the global push by Corporations in the 1980’s the “average” household savings and assets against GDP in Australia was 22%, now it is less than 8%. During that period Corporations savings went from 9% to 20%, and Australian household debt against GDP rose from 27% in 1980 to 92% in 2015.

Joe your fear of losing the status quo from this current corporate system is futile given all the negatives you address have come to pass under this corporate globalisation. As I said to Butcher, there were more butchers and outlets before big business owned everything than after it.

Loudmouth and sonofgloin,

The obsession with corporate tax rates is costly. All other things being equal, of course a lower tax rate makes us more attractive to business, but it's only one of many things that does so. Good infrastructure is generally more important, as is a highly skilled and educated workforce. Yet there seems to be a perception, especially among those on the Right, that more education spending is unaffordable but lower tax rates will pay for themselves. If anything, the reverse is true.

A financial transactions tax would be worse for the economy than cutting the corporate tax rate, as it would decimate the financial services industry while failing to raise the predicted revenue. But even that's not the worst thing we could do.

The worst thing we could do is try to get Australia out of debt! Debt is an essential part of any modern economy. The government has an infinite credit limit for debt in Australian dollars. This does NOT mean it should always run big deficits; the need to control inflation means surpluses are sometimes desirable (and still would be even if we had no debt at all). But we needn't ever worry about budget repair. And we certainly shouldn't ever weaken the economy in an attempt to rush to surplus when the unemployment rate is high. We must remember that strong local demand is also more important to business than what the corporate tax rate is.

Aidan, the whole "debt is good" outlook worries me.......the only time debt does us a favour is in establishing a credit rating.

"Aidan, the whole "debt is good" outlook worries me.......the only time debt does us a favour is in establishing a credit rating."

sonofgloin, that's absolutely ridiculous. Debt does us a favour in enabling us to afford to do what we otherwise couldn't.

But there's a lot more to it than that. Most of the world's money supply only exists because of debt. Essentially the choice is between more public debt, more private debt, or replacing the world's financial system with something else. Which do you favour?

Well obviously corporations are country shopping for the best corporate tax deals, this is the global space we live in.
They are playing countries off against each other and we need to change that so that we are playing themselves off against each other.
They are holding the jobs as ransom to avoid tax altogether.

We are playing the fool in their game.

I saw an article today here which mentioned a few companies that do not pay any tax:
McDonald's Asia Pacific Consortium, Qantas, Virgin Australia, General Motors and William Hill.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-15/australia's-top-tax-paying-teen-paid-ato-500000-dollars/7328010

Does anyone honestly believe McDonalds or Qantas or Virgin or William Hill will shut shop and give market share to a competitor if we force them to pay tax?
No they'll pay it, begrudgingly.

(Manufacturing might go elsewhere though, but face facts manufacturing is not in any way competitive here. We were going to lose those jobs eventually anyway)

Our politicians are idiots and so are we.

Armchair Critic>> Does anyone honestly believe McDonalds or Qantas or Virgin or William Hill will shut shop and give market share to a competitor if we force them to pay tax?
No they'll pay it, begrudgingly.<<

AC,worth repeating........

Legalize marijuana and sell it to generate revenue. Would pacify people and the 'coward hit' problem would be reduced allowing bars to stay open to generate further revenue.

phooey, AIUI there are many different strains of marijuana; most reduce aggression but some increase it.

But I I think this discussion would be more suited to the Is Big Business... thread.

please read discussion "consistency is overhyped"

small time thinkers just don't get it.

While the likes of Mcdonalds may not leave, their expansion plans may well be effected, a bit like the mining tax.

The only reason miners paid no mining tax was because they outsmarted the smartest man in the world and generated huge write offs.

But, you all know best so hopefully common sense will prevail and no government will be stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them.