Amazulu

I agree. Laws should be passed to prevent government departments hiring consultants. If a department needs to hire an 'expert' and he/she is expensive, cut other passengers (civil servants) to fund him/her

The west is drowning in compliance and red tape costs and bullshit

Beoz

I'm sure you wouldn't mind tax cuts if they served you.

Quite frankly I don't care if they cut or raise company tax rates. What I do care about is being competitive and enabling the majority to live with work and the freedom of choice.

Unless a global group of powerful countries agree a minimum corporate tax rate, and sanction those countries that stoop below it, Australia must remain competitive.

Moses2013

The point I'm trying to make is that corporate taxes are a huge factor and all other costs involved. A business is a business after all, so there's not much hope for wage increases, unless you're a CEO. It's about being competitive as Beoz said.

In Germany every 2nd person only has between €2100 and €3700 monthly (before tax). After taxes, that's often less than the UK.
Eines wird schnell deutlich: Jeder zweite Arbeitnehmer in Deutschland verdient zwischen 2100 und 3700 Euro brutto.
Löhne: Auf einen Blick - so verdient Deutschland - SPIEGEL ONLINE

the troubadour

No not a supporter of tax cuts. I would far prefer a more civil society though.
One where health spending is not being reduced and freedom from care in old age.


I said before a balance of the interests of the average citizen and business would suffice. Not all one sided.


It should be recalled in The States, during the eighties, Reagan cut taxes multiple times while in office, which led to less spending to support and sustain the middle class with anticipated results.


Business will not pull up sticks and move away. The horse has bolted on that one. Most that would have benefited have long done so. I have already pointed out the existing benefits of corporates doing business in Australia. Considerable they are. Hard to beat paying no tax.(1-5 pay no tax) But don't want to repeat again.

the troubadour

And I have pointed out one in five corporations do not pay tax in Australia, while others adapt other means to pay minimal. Of course lobbyists will for ever and a day push another narrative but Australia's tax burden is not even particularly high.


I wonder, no one has yet replied to how the lost funding will be made up. Will it come from taxing more the working/middle class pay as you earn workers? More overseas borrowing? Or just plan slashing government spending?


Now how about that. I read German so will give you my verdict on Spiegel article on completion.

Beoz

Said very clearly by a public servant, who never has had to justify to their management overseas why the cost of doing business in Australia exceeds most other places in the world.

Yeah they don't up sticks and leave overnight. They just don't grow or invest. Why put your effort into where the cost risks are high, when you can throw cheap bodies and exist in a low tax environment like Singapore and fly them in when the need arises. Pretty hard, almost impossible to run a growing business from Singapore.

Beoz

No one replied because its considered common sense.

When you make it cheaper to do business, they invest, they employ more (taxed), they make more profit (taxed), more businesses start or move in (taxed).

Its all about growth. Like business, governments are not stagnate animals.

the troubadour

AS explained in previous posts it doesn't quite work that way. How does business pay more tax if tax is reduced from an already low/if pay any base? Answer it doesn't. Services are cut. Prices increased on utilities while foreign share holders compensated rather well.
USA, as I have already mentioned, prove of failure of this from 80's era.


Well no business is to make profit and reward share holders. I have already given an Australian example. Banks. More profit led to sacking of workers. That's the real world.

Moses2013

See it this way. If the company wasn't there, no jobs, no tax. It's all about finding the balance. It's the same with a supermarket and the customer is rewarded by buying 2 and getting one free. A business that creates 2000 jobs paying 10% corporate tax, is more valuable than a company paying 30% with 50 people employed.

Beoz

Let me help you there.

You meant to say business is there to make a growing profit (taxed) for shareholders (if a listed company) (either way taxed). Banks, fired dead wood, and hired in growing parts of the business. You only read the media highlights about the dead wood firings. Dig a little deeper.

Its very very very difficult to grow a profit without growing people who interact and maintain where that profit comes from. Just because a bank shifts its customer facing element from behind a teller desk to in front of it, or online or on the phone, doesn't mean people aren't required to take your business. Think.

GarryP

Err that's a bit questionable. Depends on the turnover. It they employed 50 people and turned over $8bn on which they paid 30% they would be ahead of the company that employed 2000 jobs but paid 10% tax on no profit because they arranged to shift revenues. From the perspective of the country obviously. From the perspective of the company the first would be insufficiently optimised.

The reality is the drivers on business are:

• Less costs (particularly fixed)
• Less people (because of above)
• More profit (but less reported profit)
• More turnover (but not if it hurts the above too much)
• Less tax (zero is nice, tax = waste)
• Less competition (because that makes all the above better)

If you rebalance that interconnected network, you can change certain behaviours (eg less corporate tax = less desire to play complex games to avoid it), but if you really want to change things, you have to change the game - change the linkages between items.

the troubadour

I do in no way accept that. As I have with some consistency the question being where does the lost funding come from? For starters highly unlikely that a corporation experiencing a rather large tax deduction (if at all they even pay tax, to begin with, or already make full use of more than generous tax breaks in place) It is hardly likely that if in fact more employees are taken on, and this is far from being assured, that the tax base will be recovered.
I have given you Reagan's USA in the eighties where numerous tax breaks just led to a decline in services in that country.
In simple language, while more jobs of varying quality evolved, they were not high paying enough nor numerous enough to compensate for loss of tax revenue. As such more people were worse off.
But thanks for the lesson in basic economics.

the troubadour

Very questionable indeed. An understatement. Unless the attempt is to disband large segments of the welfare state to pay for these unnecessary tax cuts. Nothing says tax inducements will entice more employees of the number making tax cuts worthwhile.
The likelihood of less people more profit more likely. One should recall just what business they want to entice to Australia or what will expand?
With Asia on the doorstep rates will need to be cut to developing world levels, surely to make much of an impact. The overall cost of doing business in Australia remaining much higher than so said countries.

Beoz

More profit is the only business driver.

There rest are ways and means of getting there along with productivity increases which is the biggest money maker out of the above which you forgot.

Concentrating on cost is a low priority item usually reserved when profit is heading backward.

Look at every successful company. When did their cost or people count ever go backward?

GarryP

Actually no.

Take Amazon as an example. Growth, turnover and fixed costs are improved such that their prime concern (being the only game in town - "Day 1") is maximised.

As such profit goes back into the company as much as possible and the reported profit is minimised.

Old style companies focused on profits to a much greater extent, but today it's kind of seen as a waste, because of taxation, and the fact that what else are you going to do with the profit, if not invest in the best investment you should know - your company.