World trade is under the spotlight as is refugee migration flows, as more jobs go to new tec, and casual work takes over,tax reform and even no tax for some, can we forever continue on this path?What if we world wide made a job for every one? real work real wage of real benefit to every one and NOT competing with existing work cost? remember the costs may be far less than current welfare/refugee/migration costs, thoughts?

National Service should be the first job for every able citizen/resident of this Nation.

Hey Belly,
Didn't Labor write a white paper on full employment in 1945?
Still waiting...

Labor buys votes on emotion, but actual policies to achieve anything of value are fairytales.

When I was young and had just joined the workforce I thought unions were there to support the worker.

As I got older I realise unions exist to fund a socialist political agenda, which more or less was the opposite of what I thought I was contributing too.

Not only that, Labor survives from payoffs from the gaming industry.

They sell out the Aussie worker in favour of immigrants (where did diversity quotas come from) and they have no ethics.

What would you expect from these sellout used-car salesmen?

You're on the right track though.
The answer is to not offer money as welfare but a job instead, and safeguard human usefulness in an age of robots and automation.

I say double dole to every unemployed person who works in a separate job system, doing things to help the government save money.

Why pay people $250 a week to do nothing, when you could pay $500 and get a full time worker.

'The job you have when you don't have a job'.

“Make a job for everyone”. That's what the USSR tried to do. One example was on the stream trains: driver and fireman as usual, plus someone to blow the whistle! Jobs cannot be “made”. There has to be a demand for goods and services, and people wanting to provide those goods and services. Highly unlikely in socialist Australia where most people seem to want governments to provide everything.

Up to 2014, new business start ups dropped by 40%; the worst in the Anglosphere, with the U.S at 20%, Canada at 15%, and the UK 5%. There is no incentive to create jobs in Australia. The highest power prices in the world; stifling red tape and regulations; inability to sack no hopers; onerous superannuation requirements; high wages; too-readily-available dole; long service leave - the list goes on.

And, a majority of millennials (the biggest bludgers and gimme, gimme group) want even more political interference in the economy, when our politicians cannot even attend to the core business of government. They are all to young to know about the effects of socialism, and the socialist education system has kept it from them

Add globalisation and the gradual moving of jobs overseas for the above reasons, plus mass immigration of more no hopers who go straight on the dole, and Australia is surely rooted. We are on a slippery dip to the Third World

Armchair Critic,
Your proposal would make a good start for National Service.

Hey individual,
I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of national service but that would differ slightly from an unemployment situation.
What differs, is that if there was national service, I'd make everyone do it, no unfairness, no getting out of it.
(Though I might consider which particular jobs different people might be best suited to"

The unemployment idea provides a job for the person that 'didnt get the job' under capitalism and gives him or her a second chance to earn money and stay useful.
At the same time it's hoped that what they could do would offset their cost, making unemployment less a liability to government and more of an opportunity if you're unemployed.

Not goods or services 'build infrastructure'.

A job for everyone is a desirable outcome, but the policy was abandoned by governments because they considered it too inflationary. And in the Gillard era, the RBA board were so paranoid about inflation that they sabotaged the economy (by putting up interest rates) because they didn't think there was enough unemployment!

National Service should be ruled out, as Australia is a freedom loving country. Besides, if the private sector really want to employ someone, it's economic madness for the government to disallow it.

ttbn, where did you get the idea that the Soviet steam trains needed someone extra to blow the whistle? It sounds very unlikely to me, as they had plenty of genuine work that needed doing, plus they were very keen on electrification. I think your claim is a myth concocted by someone who's failed to understand their overreliance on central planning did not equate to a lack of concern for efficiency.

So too in Australia - there is plenty of work that could be done to improve our environment and standard of living, but is not done neglected because it's too expensive. It makes sense for the government to make unlimited minimum wage work available. But work that actually saves the government money is different - it's better to pay that by results rather than time worked.

National Service should be ruled out, as Australia is a freedom loving country.
Aidan,
?? What has a National Service got to do with loving freedom ? Unless of course, you mean the freedom for one to demand welfare but not for the other to expect some effort in return for it ?
Isn't that what fired the starting gun for welfare rorting when Whitlam abolished Military National Service & let Australia go full steam ahead to become a Welfare demanding & now welfare depending Nation ?
Those unfortunate to not secure employment would greatly benefit from exposure to responsibility & effort instead of getting perpetual training in patience by loitering on the steps of Centrelink. I am not aware of any surveys ever having been carried out as to how many are genuinely unemployed & how many chose to be.
I used to work in an environment where people chose to be unemployed because it got them more money than full-time work. We had to get workers in from outside because no apprenticeships on offer were taken advantage of. Now, years later, accusations of no opportunities are ripe & compensations are being paid. I give you one guess when all this rorting started & I give you a hint (the Govt. of the day was sacked).
I have yet to see a morally valid objection to a Non _military National Service.
Armchair critic has a very valid point (as have I said countless times on OLO) that a National Service should be for all but at this stage it could be implemented gradually instead of welfare.
Of course married couples should not be forced to separate & must be excempt. The ages of 18-20 would be an ideal age to reform the indoctrination of the school years & give young adults the chance to become normal people who can think for themselves instead of academic social experts misleading them again & again. If you really digress these proposals you'll find the end result will be a more sensible population.

Dear Belly,

Here's an interesting link worth reading:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-16/australia-on-track-1-million-new-jobs-since-2013-where-are-they/9597470

It reminds us that former PM Tony Abbott in 2013 promised us
the creation of 1 million jobs in the future. Well we're told
that this was bound to happen because on average over the last
15 years about 200,000 new jobs have been created each year over
the last 15 years. Multiply that by 5 and you've got 1 million.

It's pointed out that our population is rapidly increasing, driven
by high immigration, and the economy has been growing continually
for decades.

ABS statistics shows that we are investing big in health and
education and have the cash to spend on the Arts and Recreation -
which is also creating jobs in that sector.

The NDIS together with an increasing demand for aged care is
fuelling a spike in jobs in the health and social assistance
sector. They predict an extra 80,000 full time jobs by 2020
according to DOSS (Department of Social Services) figures.

It looks like professional, scientific and technical job
sectors (lawyers, engineers, architects, designers, computer
programmers) are jobs that are here to stay. The overall
move seems to be toward "services" over "goods" economy.

Also the trend is towards jobs in the construction sector -
government projects help towards this trend. Part-time work-
especially in the retail, accommodation, and food services
industries. There is the over all casualisation of the
workforce. Manufacturing is of course the single biggest source
of job losses and anything particularly repetitive or outine
will probably be replace by machines.

There will be many changes in the future - however using
our brains will result in better outcomes. And as always making
the appropriate adaptations and changes and innovations will
result in our being successful.

First let the truth rebut the view Labor never does any thing, Hawk/Keiting bank reform and putting us in world trade, another thought was recently put a minimum income for every one, it crops up now and again, national service? so the worlds problems can be fixed by making every one train for war?country towns could see rivers and streams cleaned, camping spots made ,pensioners fire wood cut lawns mowed, maybe national walking bike riding caravan trails and camps, we do not have to always do things as we have in the past, change can benefit us all tourist trail around this country too much could be done education too could be work for some, learning how to live a better life could help

Things will be even worse when the millenials take over.

According to a CIS poll, 58% of millenials have a favourable view of socialism, with only 18% having an unfavourable one. They believe that the government should have more control of the economy.

Bless their hearts, they haven't heard or learned about Mao. Lenin and Stalin, nor Marx and Engels and the millions of people murdered or starved to death by socialism.

On their other hand, 73% of them knew about Adolf Hiltler, their Lefty teachers favourite for putting down conservatives (which Hitler was not).

62% or of these naïve people also believe that Australian workers are worse off than they were 40 years ago, which is patent nonsense. And, these are the people taxpayers are giving $16.8 BILLION to universities to educate.

ttbn,
Rather than blindly assuming things will be even worse, take a few minutes to question your assumptions. The millennials have a different definition of "socialism" to yours, and they understand that you CAN pick and choose policies - you don't have to go for the whole package. Also try to understand that the left don't have a monopoly on political violence and a lot of people have been killed in the name of anticommunism.

The only alarming thing is that a quarter of them didn't even know about Hitler.

______________________________________________________________________________

individual,
National Service is fundamentally anti freedom because it takes away the freedom of those who are doing it.

I'll post a more detailed reply later (probably tomorrow) but meanwhile I want to ask you what environment you worked in where full time workers made less than the unemployed?

the politics of envy and class will ensure that many self entitled people will have no desire to work. Many who have graduated with totally useless degrees see it beneath them to make coffee or sweep floors.

Having a job, particularly a formal money-earning job, ought to be a lifestyle choice, not a necessity.

Let those who have a job be rewarded for it and enjoy comforts and luxuries, while those who do not, live frugally, but let it not be a case of "If I have no job, then how shall I feed my baby? How shall I keep the winter's cold away when I'm sick?". Having a formal paying job can also be taken up periodically over one's life while financial rewards can then be saved and smoothed.

So full employment is not a good thing - it encourages useless jobs, in many cases even harmful ones; it encourages government to further complicate our lives; and it pressures workers into doing wrong and immoral things on their boss's orders.

Imagine how good it will be when people only do such work that they believe in to be good, that they like, that they feel that it is helping others rather than harming or trying to tempt and rob others!

Let's face it, a large portion of the good-old, straight-forward productive work was taken by machines and so far we see no end to this trend. When those machines were designed, the objective in mind was to simplify life, rather than complicate it, to make us happier rather than miserable, to free our time for higher pursuits rather than to enslave us to more material goods and entertainment.

Look I find it hugely funny the old chestnut about socialism and its evil,the policy the current government had at its foundation, and every government on both side sence, have been in part SOCIALIST, and we would not have it any other way health education welfare all look very much like socialism when compared to America,my plan/idea was in part to be funded by welfare, that in some cases no longer being needed, if my view work of benefit to the community, is mistaken for some thing else we are indeed a weird mob.hundreds of jobs could be left to those in these jobs, just think, litter clean ups every day, real fines real recycling, all fines could go to fund the whole idea

Aidan.
Nth Qld indigenous communities.

Still wanting to shut that gate there Belly. Sorry mate, the horse has bolted old mate. It's a new world, one where the gap between the haves and have nots just keeps getting wider. There is no real middle any more, either you're well off, or you struggle.
What a shame it has come to this.

Belly,

"First let the truth rebut the view Labor never does any thing,..."

Labor does do things, especially for its mates.

There was once a thriving maritime industry at Cockatoo Dockyard, on Sydney Harbour.

Unfortunately the Island was owned by the Commonwealth Government and they needed a boost desperately for their bright haired boy, Kim Beasley.
They terminated the lease on the Dockyard and transferred the submarine refits to WA, into Kim's electorate; 'Fatso' Beasley got the kudos for new jobs and the consequent votes.

Meanwhile, the 3,800 or so workers at Cockatoo Island Dockyard lost their jobs. Many of the older employees never worked at their trades again, highly skilled Aussie workers thrown on the scrap heap by the Party of the working class.

Labor pains, yes but how come ? If the Coalition performed satisfactorily we'd not get another Labor govt again for years. Same goes for Labor, if they performed satisfactorily we'd not have another out of touch Coalition Govt either.
Both of them are run by academic background, out of touch with reality egotists pandering to a Public Service that is progressing like a Cancer. A Cancer that destroys commerce & society by eating away at humane values & principles. The only possible cure will be to let it run its course until it starts attacking itself.
Then hopefully, sanity may, just may claw its way back again. This will take decades when the "experts" will realise the true value of people actually working rather than just being there.
Cleaning up the mess will create lots of jobs but not in our lifetime.
A National Service could reduce the decades to a few years but many people don't like the thought of discipline & responsibility.

indi, I have to disagree. While I accept that the union/labor campaign against work choices was second to none, the fact was most workers had never had it so good, but decided it was time for a change. Of cause the kevin 07 style of campaign was almost like a movie, but he soon showed he was out of his depth, obviously enjoying the fruits of his wifes labour, perhaps giving him a false sense of security. The rest is history.

The damage that he and Gillard caused can never be repaired in my view simply because we will never be able to cope with the huge debt, fast approaching a trillion I believe.

Dead ducks I fear.

working union official in the Howard act of a person born to unwed parents work choices was evil and silly, it cost the little bugger his seat, without it he may still be PM saw people sacked for just asking for award wages, single mums went without pay because the law let bosses close down one day and restart another name next day, however surely we can do things differently? why not a job instead of dole? why not a job instead of aid in say southern Africa? why not paid work to provide water food and houseing in third world country's?why not paid jobs over seas to help third world countrys become livable?

rechtub,
I understand your argument but I was referring to the now & tomorrow, not the yesteryear. Irreparable damage to the nation is being done by those who we voted in to build it.
Again & again people with no grip on anything other than on the Pulic service benefit gravytrain are put up as candidates on merely academic qualification ? Don't people get it that such qualifications are meaningless, how many more such beings will be voted in bfore this folly is realised ?
We need candidates from a practical business background not some perpetually theorising dills.
Has anyone taken a serious look at the future candidates in both major parties ? Not a single one has what it takes to create real work for jobs. No-one should be even allowed to get into politics without having served in the National service. We need basic proof that they have a basic grasp of reality. Only then will projects be created that assure revenue creating employment.

Like every thread, this one has been miss used by those we all know, to both praise their choice of politics, and condemn the other side, I AM TO BLAME see I thought just once, we could maybe look at a brand new way of welfare and yes aid, that we, or some of us, may see that a better way, my shell of a system, not near final draft, would have the following outcomes benefits here in this country,a job for ever unemployed person, community benefits/out comes, an end to the never in doubt fraud of collecting the dole and working, even multiple doles,you name the tasks that may be done, but I include education,a day each week, if needed to teach good humans to just read and write, tell me why not, but please do not let this become a right vs left mud heap, doing that would say loud and clear we can not think of better ways

Belly, the fundamental difference I see in creating jobs is that the unions think it is a given right to have a job, and be awarded a pay rise just because prices increase, even when these increases are out of most employers control. Meanwhile, employers think about profits (gross) then costs, which include wages.

Given large corps work on a net margin of a few percent, in order to give a pay rise, the dollars have to be created, not just taken from profits. The other problem is that many projects take years to complete, so pay rises can be difficult to fund.

With the advancement of automation, along with affordability to smaller businesses, I can't see how we are going to save existing jobs, let alone create more, unless of cause you are talking work for the dole.

Finally, governments provide huge tax incentives to modernise your business with equipment write offs, yet fill employing people with land mines. In fact, small businesses with just a dozen employees can no longer do the book work required, so have to employ people just to do unpaid work for the government. Why should business people have to collect and pay staff taxes, pay staff super, and collect and pass on GST all for nix? Surely workers can pay their own tax and contribute their own super, both of which could be let in their pay packets. Why should we have to work for nothing?

But, if you really want to create jobs, get the greens to pull their heads in, because surely our coal that they don't want burned here, still creates omissions in the likes of China.
Continued

I read an article in the courier mail recently whereby the mining bosses have all but thrown in the towel suggesting the greens have all but made it impossible to keep going profitably.

While many sit there and say, the mines have not closed, so what's the problem. What they don't realize is that mining is often 10, 20 even 40 years in the planning. Let's face it, how confident would you be of prospecting ATM knowing there is a big chance you won't be able to extract your treasures when the time comes.

Very very damaging for our future.

So while I admire your commitment to more jobs, the reality is we are heading towards far fewer jobs meaning only the highly skilled will have jobs.

If you know how I can be different please let me know because I just can't see where future jobs are gong to come from. Even garages are encouraging customers to pay at the bowser so as to do away with staff.

Sorry, but I fear we have gone beyond the point of return on the slippery slop mate.

Go the maroons lol.

I have a quiet chuckle watching the local socialists and kin going through the "self-serve" checkouts at Coles and Woolworths; they are effectively doing someone out of a job on a normal checkout.

Doing work for nothing and destroying a job is akin to scabbing.

Is Miss, there is another side to that as well. I have a mate who refuses to use self serve unless they pay him to do so, because as he rightly says, wage costs are already built in to the sell price, meaning those who self check out are effectively working for nothing. He stands here and demands they open a check out, and they do.

So back to pay at the bowser.

This is the uber of the fuel industry whereby the fuel companies who own the sites are effectively taking the right to earn profits from the franchisees as the profit margin in a can of drink would be higher than what is made from the tank of fuel.

Again, this is an action that will trigger a reaction, as just like news agents, where one had to wait for someone to die to get one are now worthless, garages, where leases can be worth millions, face the prospect of being little more than somewhere for an observer come roust about to hang out. Of cause the 'reaction' will be hundreds of lost jobs.

While this is a thread about creating jobs for all, the reality is, we should be very worried about how we can save the jobs we already have because we are headed south in a very very big way.

Part time, if you're lucky, casual and contracts are here to stay and I doubt any amount of union advertising is going to change that.

It's a new world and the only way to save it is to reduce our lifestyles and put an immediate stop to immigration, of all kind initially.

And remember, those who make the decisions are not effected by them.

I am having trouble here in making my thoughts clear,it was never my intention to talk of current industrial relations/union v bosses, or even existing jobs, I am thinking of very real reforms, in welfare, job creation instead of receiving that, and creating better out comes for the community from those jobs,if created those jobs should never ever be in competition with existing ones,exceptions for small country towns, that have few jobs now,we seem to have trouble thinking 50/80/or even 200 years ahead, as jobs shrink better ways can be found surely

Australians - employees, employers, unions and politicians - have all been too greedy: we want money, gimme, gimme. Well, folks, you've stuffed it. What happened after the war was an aberration; it's over. Too many people, too few jobs, too much debt. Add multiculturalism, mass immigration of unsuitable people, diversity, poor education and the idea that same sex people can be married, that women can be warriors like Boudica - who had the crap beaten out of her by the Romans by the way, and we are doomed.

Speaking of Romans: all of us should be aware that the Romans - the greatest empire ever - fizzled out altogether for carrying on in the same way the West is carrying on now.

Go coal, that will create jobs.

Some of us are aware of a current talking point set out to bring relief from jobs being lost to new tec,that being a base income for every one,it has supporters but is it the best or only way to fix the growing problem? My thought was different, a job, always, instead of welfare, and as a form of aid, in third world countrys, it is possible other methods would include birth control, compulsory birth control, just can not get my head around that,but it could happen

Dear Belly,

«but is it [(base income for every one)] the best or only way to fix the growing problem?»

Should we necessarily view non-employment as a problem, rather than as an opportunity?

Yes, if we decide that this is a problem, then there is a simple solution: limit technology!

What I consider to be the real problem, is neither employment itself nor unemployment, but rather that as people desperately scramble to get a job, more useless, meaningless, unethical and harmful jobs are being created.

ok tell that to the country boy who just wants job/life, tell the west African who has no food and no hope, give me better way to support those who can not support them selves all over the world, some thing for nothing is not in my view an answer I would support, say an international task force, made up to clean up the planet,even in this country our lakes rivers and streams, forests and roadside rest areas are full of rubbish such a group could clean up and recycle, ten thousand such community improving tasks can be found
I have found a willingness to work is more often the case than bludging,

Dear Belly,

First give such a young country boy some basic income, so they don't fall prey to unwholesome employers, then you can tell them "Now if you want more, then join this task-force to clean up the country, the rivers, streams, forests, etc."

Alternately, limit technology, then tell them: "If you want to earn money, open a booth and repair people's shoes/clothing/watches/bags/ploughs/etc.".

Tell the west African who has no food and no hope, "Sterilise yourself and your family, then you will get paid".

Yuyutsu,
I can only agree with every word you wrote in your last post.
i am not against welfare if the Govt of the day is not competent enough to provide an economy that enables a willing & capable person to get up & work. If that Govt sees fit to pay thousands of utterly pointless bureaucrats $150-200,000 a year for doing literally nothing then they must be expected to find funds to provide jobs for normal working people instead of treating them like outcasts by their soul-less agent Centrelink. I know public servants who do less work in a month than most post office or supermarket employees perform in a single day & they are on $100,000 with more than generous Superannuation, courtesy of the taxpayers in real jobs.
Public Service jobs need to be made performance based not just an automatic entitlement to board the gravytrain.

Businesses create jobs, not governments.

Lowering the taxes such as corporate tax and taxes on employees would be a great start to increase jobs.

So it appears we can spend thousands of words defaming the unemployed but not find a few, in finding other answers to unemployment?

Dear Belly,

Lowering taxes to create jobs does not make sense.
It won't create jobs at all. There will be less
money in the economy for essential services such
as health, education, aged care, roads, building
and maintaining
infrastructure, new government projects will come to
a standstill - because there won't be the money for
any of these things in the economy due to tax cuts.
Who will pay for all of these things if we have tax
cuts - where will the money for these things come
from if not from our taxes?

What a ridiculous policy. And none of us should vote for
it or support it - we should show the politicians that
we're not that stupid! Or are we?

Foxy,

It is fundamental economics. Lowering corporate tax encourages investment which creates jobs. This has worked spectacularly for Singapore and Ireland as two examples.

That most other countries have lowered their corporate tax rates and even Labor was spruiking the idea after advice from their experts shows that it is solidly founded in reality.

Secondly, now that the rest of the world has lowered corporate tax rates, Aust is one of the highest taxing countries, with the result that Australia's percentage of international investment has halved in the last decade.

Only an ignoramus would claim otherwise.

PS, more industry and high paying jobs = more tax for services.

Shadow Minister,

You sound exactly like Mathias Cormann. Did you copy his
spin from "The Insiders?"

China is already buying up our country - the tax cuts
will make it even easier for them to buy even more.
And they of course will take their money back to China.
Which makes it good for us - right?

Unless we want to be part of China.

They're already making moves on our Pacific region -
perhaps we should make it easier for them?
The tax-cuts will definitely help do that.

Shadow Minister,

There is a lot more to jobs and growth that the corporate
tax rate.

The big four banks are among the largest corporate
taxpayers in Australia. The Prime Minister has long argued
that it's companies like NAB, CBA, ANZ and WESTPAC that
need some relief paying less in corporate tax so they can
pay more to their staff.

But higher profits don't always translate to higher job
numbers or better wages. The banks might be making mega
profits but it's an industry facing digital disruption
and it is shedding jobs. Westpac has closed many of its
branches in Melbourne suburbs.

You mentioned Singapore and Ireland. These places did not
look merely at corporate income tax in isolation. They
looked at all potential sources of tax revenue rather than
embarking on short term measures - governments need to
re-examine fiscal policies and strive for a sustainable tax
revenue base that can support a nation's long-term growth.

Countries whose corporate tax cuts are already low - like
Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, and others have little room
to achieve any further cuts without compromising their tax
revenues.

I wonder if people out of work has considered moving to an area where employers can't get enough employees. That would be novel.

Turnbull is an investment banker, see bank royal commission, he was a business partner to Nifty Shifty Nev, one of ours, and a thief, end discussion on tax cuts, it will always be my view a single every one pays at the same rate, on every thing, tax is worth a look remains my view

Lowering the taxes such as corporate tax and taxes on employees would be a great start to increase jobs.
Shadow Minister,
Yeah well, but wouldn't that require politicians with at least half an ounce of integrity, half an ounce of common sense & half an ounce of decency ?
Where on Earth would you find one of those ?

Foxy,

As I don't generally watch the insiders I have no idea what Mathias Cormann said, but as it is the cold hard reality backed by facts it is not unrealistic that we would come up with the same argument.

Increased company profits generate expansion which increases jobs. There are exceptions such as the banks where expansion is limited to a relatively static market, but generally, the correlation between low taxes and increased investment and jobs is by experience clear and unambiguous.

The examples of Ireland, Singapore, Hongkong, and Taiwan are all 20% or lower, and all of them have had above average economic growth for decades. This is not a coincidence.

Canada with a very similar economy has dropped company tax to 25% and the UK to 19% and just about every country in the world is dropping company tax rates so either just about every economist in the world has gone barking mad, or there must be something in it.

https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

Shadow Minister,

Tax expert Dr Hamson says the impact of Australia's
divided imputation system makes a case for wide-sweeping
corporate tax cuts harder to mount because the benefits
flow disproportionately to foreign investors.

He tells us that Australia and New Zealand are the only
two countries in the OECD where companies can distribute
profits to shareholders on which tax has already been paid,
thus reducing their tax payable.

In most countries, companies pay tax and then shareholders
pay tax on their dividends. This is not the case in Australia.
Australian generally taxes just once.

Cutting the company tax rate therefore does NOT result in a
higher after tax return on investment to Australian shareholders
in Australian businesses. The principal benefactors of a cut in
Australia's corporate tax rate are overwhelmingly foreign
companies and foreign shareholders in Australian companies.

The government says it is relying on these foreign entities
and investors to use the tax cut to lift their investments
in Australia.

indy you live in a dark world, one in my view that never existed, think with me about all those past PM s that had well over 50 support, there are a few if we say had four year terms politicians could get about reforming things not being stunned in the spotlight of needing to be elected

Belly, unless you want to allow low skilled workers work for ten bucks an hour, you are dreaming.

Even if that did happen, the low skilled would soon gain skills and replace the higher skilled in many jobs.

Sorry mate, we had a situation just ten odd years ago where anyone who wanted a job had one. Sure, the low skilled and lazy got paid less, but hey, at least they had the job you speak of.

Sorry, but the country chose to go with the Kevin 07 experiment and here we are, doomed im afraid.

We'd be better off just accepting it and planning on how we are going to manage the future, with the very first step being a total ban on immigration, at least until the dust settles and we find out just where we really are.

What is the great so-called difficulty in a Flat tax ? It's got me stumped why we don't have that at least for anyone earning a weekly wage ? Let managers & CEO's make money if they can manage it but not with less tax than the rest of us pays. We always hear of the fairness of the level playing field, well let's have it !

Expand on that individual and you have some thing like I am asking for, As I see it current problems include, the ability of the rich to avoid tax, our inability to get multi nationals to pay tax,a pressing need for more tax revenue to fund our needs,health welfare education a long list.
My job for every one is not a work for the dole scheme, it is a different way of welfare, world wide, a form of aid in the third world, that every one pays and cannot be avoided tax could in part fund those jobs and more

Belly,
I'm with you on everyone paying the same rate of tax. Full stop ! The moment someone gets a reduced company tax etc. it all derails. Workers, bosses, companies all pay the same rate.
Someone suggested a transaction tax a while back, perfect. No getting away from paying tax. And, if everyone pays tax, the tax can be reduced, how much more simple can it get ?
For argument's sake, earn a Dollar, pay 10 cents tax. Spend a Dollar & there's another 10 Cents Tax. No negative gearing, no writing things off. The economy would be stable & better.
Add a national service & Australia could be the best place in the world.

Foxy,

Your reasoning is incoherent. CT reduction passes the value to all shareholders irrespective of whether there is imputation tax through larger dividend payments and the increase in share value.

This benefits overseas investors just as much as super funds. Imagine having up to 5% more to retire with?

Note that South Africa also has share imputation and most countries that don't also have something in place to alleviate the problems with double taxation.

Shadow Minister,

You are not being logical. And once again I see
that we are so far apart in our thinking that
any further discussion with you is truly pointless.
You swallow the Coalition's spin completely. And always
have. I have made the mistake once again, to try debate
the issues with you - I should have known better.

Foxy,

This is not a matter of opinion. Anything that increases the profit of a company both increases the value of the shares and/or the dividend payout both of which benefit the shareholder. Considering that the largest shareholders are super funds, it is retirees that benefit most.

That overseas investors benefit encourages them to invest and create more jobs.

It's a recipe that has been followed by dozens of developed countries.

Shadow Minister our current system in the end, places the wealth in very few hands, and even then those hands rort the tax system, not in my view near good enough

our current system in the end, places the wealth in very few hands,
Belly,
I wouldn't call the Public Servants "a very few" but yes, you're right.

Shadow,
>Businesses create jobs, not governments.
True, false respectively.

Businesses and governments both create jobs. But importantly, governments also create conditions that are (or aren't) conducive to businesses creating jobs.

>Lowering the taxes such as corporate tax and taxes on employees would be a great start to increase jobs.
That's one way of achieving that objective, but IMO it hardly rates as "a great start" because it's expensive for the government yet not particularly effective.

If more jobs is the objective, increasing government spending (without increasing the tax rate) is just as effective as cutting the tax rate. Indeed it could be more effective, because the spending could be directed to depressed regions where it's more effective at creating jobs and less inflationary. Or the government can spend on things like infrastructure and education which ultimately make businesses more productive.

Alternatively, the government could just cut interest rates. When the economy is going well, an interest rate cut is likely to be more effective (in terms of induced GDP for the same inflationary outcome) than a tax cut.

>This is not a matter of opinion. Anything that increases the profit of a company both increases the value of the shares and/or the dividend payout both of which benefit the shareholder. Considering that the largest shareholders are super funds, it is retirees that benefit most.
That would benefit existing shareholders, but new shareholders would have to pay those higher share prices, so whether they'd be any better off is far from certain. But more importantly, you're disregarding the opportunity cost.

>That overseas investors benefit encourages them to invest and create more jobs.
But why should we rely on overseas investment to create jobs when we could create them with domestic investment instead?

Aidan,
Could you please offer your opinion on the pros/cons of a Flat Tax for everyone, business included ?

Well individual maybe a public servant hurt you? stole the meat pie you had your eye on? if it was even remotely true they as you claim so often, are the reason for every bad thing that ever happens, lets get rid of them! doctors nurses teachers, police officers, ambo,s gone, all of them, now hopefully out there right now, some one who one day will convince the world a new system of tax, ending forever avoidance, funding the things we must have just to live a decent life, is putting his/her plan together

individual,
A flat tax for everyone, businesses included, is something I strongly oppose. Taxes should be on profits; any taxes on turnover make it harder to make a profit in the first place. If we have to tax turnover, a non-compounding GST (such as we have) is the best way to do it, but the tax reform I'd most like to see (in the short to medium term at least) is abolishing the GST.

If you're referring to Alan B's "unavoidable" tax, I think that would be easy to avoid (to Australia's detriment) by using foreign currency. And I also strongly oppose restricting our freedom to use cash.

I think a progressive rate of income tax is much better than a flat rate, because I think the cost of living should be taken into account, and high income earners have a much greater ability to pay.

In the long term I would like to see much more of the burden of tax shifted onto the unimproved value of land - that way we could keep interest rates low without having to worry about land price bubbles. As the cost of land including tax depends largely on what people can afford, such a land tax would not make land less affordable. Such a tax would of course have to be phased in over several decades to avoid unduly disadvantaging existing landowners.

Now regarding national service and freedom, you wrote:
>Unless of course, you mean the freedom for one to demand welfare but not for the other to expect some effort in return for it ?
The tax people pay should be sufficient compensation for the government. Most people pay far more in tax than they receive in welfare payments.

If, for the government, something is worth doing, it's worth paying a sufficient wage for that people will do it voluntarily. Failing to do so is not only an unreasonable theft of the freedom of those forced to do it, but could also be a false economy as it prevents those people engaging in higher value activities.

Belly,
May I suggest you look up Public service salaries before you post again on this subject ?
Most of the the professions you referred to have quite a number of duds who are just hanging off the efforts of others & yes, that includes Doctors, school teachers,Police officers, but the most & worst you find in outfits like Centrelink, local Government, State Government & Federal Governments & they're called bureaucrats who couldn't actually tell you what they do that justifies the handsome salaries they get. What I am trying to tell you is that we have many crates full of apples with 10% of bad ones in every crate. When did I ever complain about professional people doing a good job ? I complain about Public servants getting professional salaries for dud performance ?
Without exception, everyone of these duds that I debated with defended Labor & denounced Conservatives. Doesn't that tell you something ?

Aidan,
How would a flat tax impact on turnover ? Wouldn't tax just be paid on income & not spending ?
I mean you earn & when you spend, the person who recives your money then pays tax.

Okay Aidan, so what about a financial transaction tax, or say 1 or 2% applied to every single financial transaction. There could be rates as small as 0.1% on the likes of trades.

Money movement being taxed not workers/earners. Would like your thoughts/input. I've heard of it but i'm afraid it's out of my pay rate so as to speak.

individual,
Your earlier reference to a flat tax was ambiguous, so I answered it comprehensively. If what you meant was a flat tax rate for all individuals and companies, that wouldn't directly affect turnover but its indirect effect would probably be very strongly adverse because the people who are spending all their money would be forced to spend less.

___________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub,
As I said, I think the tax should be on profits rather than on the turnover that enables them to make those profits. Taxing trades would make our financial services sector less competitive and drive a lot of the business overseas.

I am rather disappointed by your other posts on this thread. What will it take to convince you that Australia's government debt is not a problem at all? And what would it take for you to embrace automation?

people who are spending all their money would be forced to spend less.
Aidan,
?? Wouldn't a Flat Tax simply mean that the high earners make slightly less profit but still remain high earners ? And, the wage earners would have more purchasing power which would only prevent the money lenders from making less than immoral profits ? In my opinion if there were a Flat Tax there'd only be one winner, the Nation & no losers.

individual you would think I know it is useless trying to talk to you but face it I can not resist, public servants do not all earn those huge wages you would have us think ,and in the end try as hard as I can I can find no links to them and the thought a job for every one may be a preposition we should look at.tax! said several times in posts here I was not the one to do the numbers on this, but try again, the tax reform I see as needed is one that no one can avoid, [it may even be a lesser rate than we pay now] even multi nationals must pay it,no way around it by falsely claiming a loss

Individual,
>?? Wouldn't a Flat Tax simply mean that the high earners make slightly less profit but still remain high earners ?
Assuming your definitions are consistent with what you wrote last night, NO. Compared with our current progressive taxes, a flat tax rate would mean high earners would pay less tax while low earners would pay more.

>And, the wage earners would have more purchasing power
Except for those on high wages, the wage earners would have LESS purchasing power because they'd be paying more tax. And that sudden loss of consumer purchasing power would be a big shock to business, particularly small business.

>which would only prevent the money lenders from making less than immoral profits ?
Are you saying they'd either make immoral profits or none at all?

>In my opinion if there were a Flat Tax there'd only be one winner, the Nation & no losers.
Then your opinion is silly, because the rich would be winners while the nation and the poor would be losers.

Belly,

Starting and running a business is extremely risky with most people failing. As most jobs in the country come from small to medium businesses, it is important to encourage them to invest and expand which a company tax does exactly the opposite. People that do extraordinarily well might be a source of envy, but they also pay huge amounts of tax and employ thousands of people. When these people get rich, the least well-off benefit as well.

The economics is clear, reducing company tax encourages investment, creates more jobs and thus more tax is paid and less welfare is required. The only question is whether the tax revenue lost is greater or less than the revenue gained.

The answer in many countries that have tried it is that it is revenue neutral at worst.

Shadow Minister every single wage earning worker is a small business, involved in the business of just living, IF we can gain just some of the unpaid taxes, every one can without doubt pay less, to consume people must earn, to profit small business must sell

a flat tax rate would mean high earners would pay less tax while low earners would pay more.
Aidan,
Come again ?? Why would high earners pay less tax than workers ? Say 20 cents in the Dollar for argument's sake. A worker earning $100 pays $20 tax whereas a high salary person earns $1000 & pays $200 Tax. Where does the higher earner pay less tax than the worker ?

Belly,

Sorry, a worker is not a small business. A small business has money invested by the owner who will lose it all and probably his home if he can't make it work.

Secondly, while the government (and every government before) has tried to plug the loopholes, the reality is that the money being lost to tax avoidance is wildly exaggerated by the Labor party and the possible additional tax gained from further restrictions is unlikely to pay for the additional paperwork let alone provide the rivers of gold that are promised.

individual,
Is this a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my position? Are you faking stupidity? Or is it genuine?

Look at the whole sentence rather than the second half of it:
: Compared with our current progressive taxes, a flat tax rate would mean high earners would pay less tax while low earners would pay more.

Do you understand yet? The comparison wasn't with each other!

Aidan,
You've lost me, does anyone else get this ?

Struth, individual, is it really that hard to understand?

If our current progressive tax rates were replaced with a flat tax rate, higher income earners would pay less tax than they do now, and lower income earners would pay more tax than they do now.

I never claimed that lower income earners would pay more tax than higher income earners.

Aidan,

let me try again, The more you earn the more tax you pay, does that register ? So, how do you figure someone who pays $200 Tax is paying less than somone who is paying $20 ?

You said "The comparison wasn't with each other! There is no comparison, the more you earn the more tax you pay ! Do away with all the complexities of progressive tax etc, they have more loopholes than a block of swiss cheese. No negative gearing just make your money & pay your tax like everyone else. The present system is what needs abolishing so that the corruption that goes with it gets abolished also. Unless of course you're one of the tax evaders whom the present system is taylor made for.

Aidan I understand and in truth it is not hard, look you may well have a better idea than I have of how this can happen, but I at least think if those currently not paying tax, not just the international traders but those who pay big time to avoid tax started paying we all may pay less,world trade,much disliked by many, surely one day will need laws about what tax is paid and to who,/if not world trade only makes some country's rich and others poor.

Belly,
The problem is the country where the profit shows up isn't always the country where the value was created, nor the country where the customers are located. There are various ays to mitigate the problem, but I'm not aware of any way that it could be solved completely. However it's not a major reason why some countries are rich and others poor.

__________________________________________________________________________________

individual
>let me try again, The more you earn the more tax you pay, does that register ?
Of course.

>So, how do you figure someone who pays $200 Tax is paying less than somone who is paying $20 ?

I DON'T
Does that register?
Does it register how much of an idiot you are for thinking I do after I've repeatedly told you I don't?

>There is no comparison, the more you earn the more tax you pay !
Of course there's a comparison because I'm making one.
The comparison I'm making is between the status quo and what you're advocating.

Currently we have a progressive tax system where high income earners pay tax at a higher rate than low income earners. You want them to all pay at the same rate.

You want to give the rich a massive tax cut and the poor a massive tax slug, and you think that just because the rich would still pay a greater amount of tax, it's OK.

But I say it's not OK. There is such a thing as the cost of living, and our taxation system rightly takes that into account.

As for negative gearing, that's a separate issue. We could easily keep our progressive tax system and do away with negative gearing. Personally I don't favour scrapping negative gearing completely, as it encourages investment and delays (not removes) tax liability. (I'm not including the negative gearing tax loophole for subsidiary companies in this; I know some attempt was made to fix that but I do not know how effective the fix was).

I recently read somewhere some figures on tax paid by segment of the population.

From memory but close to the figures.

The top 10% of earners pay 50% of all PAYE tax collected.

The bottom 40% of PAYE tax payers collect more in benefits than they pay in tax, so no tax paid by them.

Kind of negates some of the arguments expressed here.

Way too many loopholes in the present system which deceives the real figures. This why so many ultra high earners can go bankrupt & put employees out in the cold, leave creditors & contractors out in the cold yet they still continue to live a lifestyle on the money they owe but don't have to repay.
At the other end you have the welfare rorting. A flat tax intertwined with a transaction tax would sort many of these rorts once & for all. Ah yes & a National service to instil a more moral mentality.
Negative gearing is nothing less than welfare on a grand scale.

Indi, what he is saying is that at 20%, those in the 48 cents per dollar margin would pay far less tax than the do now. Not less tax than the lower earner.

rechtub,
I DID say 20% for argument's sake. Of course if a flat tax were to ever be considered it'd be anything from 20% to 23 or 25 or 30%, it'd have to be worked so that no revenue loss occurred.
The fact remains that the present system is stifling our daily lives & change is needed. More spending money needs to be made available for the economy to at least provide hope of a surplus. Everything has changed except the rortable tax system.

individual,
Do you actually know what negative gearing is?
Why do you think people who make losses shouldn't be allowed to claim them against profits for taxation purposes?

I find it quite ironic that you complain about the system stifling people's everyday lives, yet advocate it doing so in a much bigger way in the form of national service! Far from instilling a more moral mentality, it would instil more resentment of the government.

But at the moment, what's stifling people's everyday lives is not the tax rates nor what can be deducted, but the government's attempt to run a surplus.

Do you know what a surplus actually means?
It means the government takes more money out of the economy than it puts in!

Right now the government is still putting too little money into the economy. The private sector are failing to do so despite interest rates being low, because there's not enough opportunities to make money. If the government ran a bigger deficit, there would be more jobs, more spending and more opportunities for the private sector to make money, so the private sector would borrow more (putting even more money into the economy) and employ even more people. This would, as you've mentioned, enable the government to make a surplus sooner (which isn't a worthwhile objective in itself but is sometimes desirable for controlling inflation).

Negative gearing is proof we need tax reform, it funds investors who invest in housing and that isolates lower income earners who pay for the tax break, so they can not own or some times even rent, a home. when and it is when not if, the housing bubble bursts in part negative gearing will prove government subsidy helped inflate the balloon

"people who make losses shouldn't be allowed to claim them against profits for taxation purposes?"
Aidan,
The rest of us aren't allowed to do it, yet we are expected to manage

"It means the government takes more money out of the economy than it puts in!"

If us normal citizens operated like that we'd starve, that's why we always stop spending when we run short & make an effort of putting it back in ! Oh, if only politicians could be that sensible.

"If the government ran a bigger deficit, there would be more jobs, more spending and more opportunities for the private sector to make money,"

That's what we are all drawing attention to, they're not managing ! But, isn't it somewhat magic how they always seem to be able to cough up massive bureaucrat salaries & fund hare-brained schemes ? I hear Consultants aren't doing too badly either when engaged by Govt.

Belly,
Labor agree wit you on that, and have promised to disallow new negative gearing on existing housing.

_________________________________________________________________________________

individual,

>The rest of us aren't allowed to do it, yet we are expected to manage
Firstly the rest of us ARE allowed do it. Secondly you appear to be wrongly assuming that I'm benefitting from negative gearing.

>If us normal citizens operated like that we'd starve, that's why we always stop spending when we run short & make an effort of putting it back in !
That's because us normal citizens don't have unlimited credit like the nation does, aren't immortal like the nation is, will probably need to retire like the nation won't, and don't have their income dependant on how much they spend like the nation does.

>Oh, if only politicians could be that sensible.
What is sensible for individuals can be catastrophic for nations.

>That's what we are all drawing attention to, they're not managing !
Indeed they're not, but you oppose the policies by which they could.

Some times truth can be confronting, no political party men ever had or ever will have can please every one, not one of them go even near to always getting it right, as in all things the best we can hope for is the better one rules, some times,they face a task we would shrink from, pleasing as many as they can, while understanding others may hate them. even this issue, partly reforming welfare and maybe aid, by giving a job to those in need, even with its side benefit of community improvement, suffers because some see no good in it, yet we constantly call for better government and improvement?

Firstly the rest of us ARE allowed do it.
Aidan,
That's news to me because when I lost close to a hundred grand in consecutive robberies my tax agent told me there's no way I can claim the loss.

The whole process is made up of so much deliberate artificial complexity with absolutely not an ounce of moral basis that it is no wonder that the greedy fleece the system & don't want it to change.
I'll stick with my simplistic earn a Dollar-pay 20 cents tax.

individual,
I'm not an expert in tax law (nor any kind of lawyer or accountant) but that doesn't sound right to me. I suggest you get a second opinion.

Yes can not see how you could ever not be able to claim for such a loss

Well, as I said the Tax agent siad there's no way & when I asked a Magistrate he just shrugged his shoulders & walked away. Terry O'Gorman from Civil Libertarians said'sorry mate, we're batting for the other team". (exact words)

individual, the following link may be of use to you:
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=AID/AID2001318/00001

Must be more to this than you are telling us individual, on the face of it based on what you say it just can not be that way surely

individual,

It never hurts to get another opinion.

Here's one that should make anyone not vote for the either of the majors.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/30/pay-rise-for-politicians-as-penalty-rates-trimmed-further-in-hospitality-and-retail

Aidan & Foxy,
Thank you for your input. But, just to give you a picture on how these work I'll drag out an incident from about 12 -15 years ago.
The same vermin who robbed me years later, smashed the Police Senior Serheant's front door & then pelted his not very old 4-wheel drive with rocks & sticks. Now, being the top cop in town so to speak one would think he just had to get the insurance to sort it out. Think again. The insurance turned around & stated that living in an indigenous community renders insurance invalid. My insurance gave me a laptop after about nine months to the value of $1500 in place of two $4500 computers. When i told them to just put the money into my account because I had already bought a new computer they said, either you accept the laptop or you get nothing, we do not pay out money. When the Police asked the culprit if he had stolen my gear he denied it & therefore the Police said the case was closed.

individual even here you let your view block your ability to see a truth, it is a one sided view that wage cuts are good for the economy, such cuts will be reviewed if the other side wins, if an economy needs cheap wages, then lets some refuse to pay award rates, to thrive our economic future is doomed,the chances of other than the two making up the two party preferred being elected is zero, what do we want out of our economy/community? if it needs to create wealth then why is poverty a side result? blaming the poor for being poor is not an option

individual,
There's one lesson I hope you (and the police) took from this: always check you have the right insurance policy, because many insurance companies have no qualms about ripping off their customers.

Belly,
My long standing argument is to freeze Public Service Salaries for at least three terms of federal Govt. Freeze politicians salaries for ten years & introduce a flat tax for wage earners & introduce a non mlitary National Service. Then there won't be any need for penalty rates & job cuts the lower income workforce & Welfare could be reduced by at least 50%.

Aidan,
Most insurance companie will not insure private pleasure boats north of Cairns. The two who do have premiums that no-one can afford.

individual while I never have and never will thought politicians and public servants wages are too high I am confronted by the multi millions some CEOs earn in the open market.
Pay peanuts get Monkeys comes to mind, however! it has been my experience in some public service positions the standard of work is bad to dreadful,it seems the worse they are the higher that person gets to go, why? love to know

Belly apples & oranges mate. Compare the public servants pay rate with the equitant job requirement.

Try perhaps a check out chick, although they work much harder than most public servants. Or if you like, a clerk in an office somewhere. If you do you will have to admit bureaucrats are paid at least double what they are worth.

On insurance of boats individual, in the 70s I was quoted 4% a year for coastal, between Rockhampton & Melbourne, & 7.5% north of Rockhampton or for foreign going. After 8 years of foreign going uninsured I had saved over half the value of the yacht, so infront, & after 19 years I had saved over the value of the thing. You just have to be competent & careful, much easier on the water than the roads.

individual,
Even no insurance is better than insurance which takes your money and fails to pay out.

>My long standing argument is to freeze Public Service Salaries for at least three terms of federal Govt.
Likely result: most of the talented people in the Public Service would leave.

>Freeze politicians salaries for ten years
That sounds more reasonable, though I'd still be wary of supporting it until I know more about why they're currently paid as much as they are.

>& introduce a flat tax for wage earners
So why exactly do you want to fund a tax cut for high income earners by giving low income earners a tax rise?

>& introduce a non mlitary National Service.
Taking away people's freedom and instilling a huge resentment of the government. WTF is your objective here?

>Then there won't be any need for penalty rates
That looks like a non sequiter. Why do you think penalty rates are currently needed?

>& job cuts the lower income workforce
That problem could better be solved by changing fiscal and monetary policy.

>& Welfare could be reduced by at least 50%.
It looks like your plan would reduce the welfare of the population by at least 50%!

But presuming by "welfare" you mean social security payments, you seem to have missed the fact that pensions make up the bulk of these.