6th Feb 2018

Government’s $65b company tax cut deeply unpopular: poll

Aussies reject company tax cuts
Ben Hocking

Polling from The Australia Institute (TAI) suggests the Government is backing a loser in its attempts to give big business a $65 billion tax cut.

The TAI polling showed 58 per cent of respondents opposed the government plan, while only 25 per cent supported the move to cut the tax rate for large companies.

In fact, when asked if company tax rates should go up or down, more people supported increasing the company tax rate than decreasing it.

The sentiment ran across party lines with a majority of coalition voters also opposed to the tax cuts.



The polling also showed 65 per cent support for funding public services as a better way to support employment and economic growth.

TAI’s Executive Director Ben Oquist said the economic case for company tax cuts was poor.

“Research shows that there is no correlation between lower company tax rates, employment or economic growth,” Mr Oquist said.

“A multi-billion dollar company tax cut represents an enormous hit to the budget, and it has to come from somewhere. It means either racking up a much bigger deficit or cutting back on critical investments like education, hospitals and infrastructure or likely both.

“The polling continues to show that the politics of company tax cuts are almost as bad as the economics, with support in the Australian public for the government’s policy sinking to new lows,” Mr Oquist said.

“A recent report by Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute, David Richardson, analysed data on tax rates from Australia and OECD countries, finding cutting company tax rates did not correlate with economic growth.

“The research did, however, find that OECD countries with lower company tax rates have lower standards of living - measured as purchasing power of GDP per capita - and that as corporate and company taxes have been lowered in other countries, there has been a rise in average unemployment rates and decline in wages and mixed income.”

What do you think? Do you support the Government’s plan to cut the company tax rate for big business? Would you prefer to see the $65 billion spent on hospitals, infrastructure and education?

 

Related articles:
You’re paying for return to surplus
Aussies tired of unfair economy
Politicians receive pay rise





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
arbee
7th Feb 2018
10:36am
What more would you expect from TAI, they probably had a list of unionists that they rang for this poll. Our proposed business tax cuts are very mild compared with what is going to happen in the USA, where the overwhelming consensus is that it will create a lot more employment. These comments are so much an idealistic left wing policy, tax the living hell out of everyone and every business and bloat up the public service until everyone works for the state and the state owns everything.
maelcolium
7th Feb 2018
11:01am
Yeah right, which is why after those USA tax cuts. Wall Street had it's biggest points drop in it's history followed by our own market.

Where is this overwhelming consensus you are talking about, or is that what you saw reported on some mainstream news grab?

Whether the view is left wing or not, it is actually sound macroeconomic fact that tax cuts to major corporates do not increase employment, economic activity or keep businesses in any country. Maybe in impoverished parts of Africa where the corporates are looting the natural resources, but in a developed economy it is sheer nonsense as empirical evidence has proven for forty plus years.

Your comment is ideologically driven which is obscuring the plain facts in front of your face, Sad really.
Cowboy Jim
7th Feb 2018
11:04am
Well, arbee, most people do not seem to understand the world of the freedom of movement of companies. If you have to pay tax of 35% in Australia and 20% in the USA, maybe 15% in Singo or Hong Kong where would the company relocate to? Anywhere there is less taxation and that is a certainty. Companies are here to make a profit for the owners (share holders) and not to provide jobs for the locals. Even the unions will have to come to understand that. Public service jobs do not create wealth they just dissipate it.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:02pm
Cowboy Jim that is exactly why the US is cutting their tax rates. 15% tax paid in another country does not help any country other than the one where it is paid. If all the companies operating in the US paid tax in the US even at the reduced rate then they wold have heaps more tax revenue than they had t the old rates.

That is why we have to cut our company tax rates as well. I'd like to see them cut to 15%.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:06pm
maelcolium, so you are saying we should have higher taxes for a much stronger economy? How about we increase the GST and other taxes and really get the economy booming? Is that a macroeconomic fact? LOL. We could make history as the first country to tax our way into economic prosperity by having less money in the hands of its citizens.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:08pm
Google is now returning from Ireland and creating 20,000 new jobs, also bringing its $200b cash holding with it.
Kaz
7th Feb 2018
1:10pm
Fools. There are investors in Australia from countries that have lower tax rates for Han ours. It is not just the tax rate that makes the decision for investment. You all know trickle down doesn’t work. I dare you to challenge Ben Oquist to a debate. You would have nothing left to say after ‘you, you lefty’ thinking that’s a clever insult!
KSS
7th Feb 2018
1:10pm
maelcolium, you neglect to mention that those big losses were recovered in 15 minutes the following day!
Tib
7th Feb 2018
3:56pm
The truth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/corporate-tax-data-released-by-ato/9236878
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:15pm
http://www.smh.com.au/money/multinationals-still-dont-pay-fair-share-in-tax-despite-81m-taxpayerfunded-ads-20170919-gyk9ic.html
Knows-a-lot
8th Feb 2018
1:07pm
Union-bashing must be arbee's favourite sport. Typical dim-witted Rightard.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:29am
UK is now the world's best tax haven, and huge tax cuts have boosted the incomes of the top 2%, almost doubling them, and the standard of living of ALL of the other 98% has FALLEN DISMALLY.

In the US, California RAISED taxes significantly and Kansas SLASHED taxes. The Kansas economy collapsed and California is booming.

Companies do business here because they want the customers they can access by doing business here. Nothing to do with taxes - which the wealthiest companies don't pay anyway!

These tax cuts are a recipe for economic disaster, and most of the population is smart enough to know that.
Hoohoo
10th Feb 2018
1:17pm
It's a fact that modern economics must now accept - the "trickle down effect" is a big fat lie, designed to dupe people who are desperate for real jobs (you know, with holidays and sick pay) for themselves and their children.
But our modern economies are increasingly worked by people without job security and it's the economics of globalisation that has driven the search for cheap labour and created the casualisation of our workforce. It's also the main driver of wage stagnation, which is not only happening in Australia.
Meanwhile, corporations get a 20% increase in profits, with absolutely no intention, compunction or reason to trickle the profits down to wages for their workers, the bottom feeders in this cruel game. They are fixated on profits for their shareholders and of course, increasingly huge bonuses for their CEOs.
floss
7th Feb 2018
10:42am
Does big business pay any tax at this time so what is the point of a tax cut.
Captain
7th Feb 2018
12:24pm
The way ahead is as I have said in other forums, Australia needs a review of income and taxes. Politicians need to bit the bullet and have a complete review.

It may cost billions and several years to complete, however I believe that a review will show that individuals and companies would have to pay somewhere between 15 - 20% tax on all income.

I have spoken to several MP's about this and they are not interested (too hard).
Old Man
7th Feb 2018
12:24pm
Yes floss, big business pays tax in accordance with the laws in Australia. The latest figure I could access showed that the banks paid a total of $9.51 billion, Apple paid $74.1 million, Google paid $9.2 million, IKEA paid $14 million, Microsoft paid $31 million. These are the usual suspects accused of dodging tax when Labor supporters wish to spread their lies.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:29pm
That is obviously why you're the Captain. You know the answer before the question is asked. Why have the review?
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:40pm
With families earning $60,000 or less and pay no tax after their benefits are taken into account can you really see them overjoyed about paying 15-20% in tax? Remember 80% of the tax is paid by 20% of the people.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:16pm
Big business does not pay its fair share of tax.
http://www.smh.com.au/money/multinationals-still-dont-pay-fair-share-in-tax-despite-81m-taxpayerfunded-ads-20170919-gyk9ic.html
Captain
7th Feb 2018
4:18pm
Frank, why have the review? I imagine my broad brush picture needs to be fleshed out in order to determine it's feasibility.

After all, I am only a Captain and not God, so I might just be wrong in some my assumptions.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:34am
Big business isn't paying it's share of tax and neither are wealthy people. The system is broken, and cutting the tax rate is only going to make it worse. It has failed dismally in the UK, which is now the world's best tax haven and has record poverty. It failed in Kansas (while tax increases worked a treat for California!). And it appears now it's failing for Trump. No surprises there!
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
8:04pm
Business profits increased last year by 20% and NOTHING flowed down to benefit wage earners, the unemployed, or the economy as a whole. So why one earth would anyone be stupid enough to think tax cuts for the wealthy will ''trickle down'' to benefit the economy?
floss
7th Feb 2018
10:44am
Arbee how is it the fault of unions try being a little more Australian.
Waiting to retire at 70
7th Feb 2018
10:56am
Arbee reflecting Australian 'values'? Nah he was 'born to rule'. Only problem is he can't accept the rest of we plebs can determine fakery like his.

Arhh, conservatives, got to love 'em - they are a quaint reminder of yesterday and colonies.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
11:25am
I disagree with the opening statement..
"Polling from The Australia Institute (TAI) suggests the Government is backing a loser in its attempts to give big business a $65 billion tax cut."
If the government was giving big business a $65b tax cut, which it is not, then the question arises, who are these shareholders who will benefit? Could they be workers with superannuation invested in these "big businesses"?
Most big business is owned by us little people.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
11:40am
Agree these tax cuts will flow down to the shareholders and the workers in these companies.
Cowboy Jim
7th Feb 2018
11:56am
Frank - you got it in a nutshell. I always looked where my super fund had my money invested in. Most large companies were represented, certainly all 4 big banks and then Woolies and Coles and was a bit surprised to find all the multinationals like Nestle, Novartis and La Roche. All the big miners are in there as well. And who does not have Woolies and Coles shares in their portfolio when in their younger years?
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:14pm
Cowboy Jim, Whatever you think about Labor and the Greens, you must applaud their political nouse. An absolute master stroke to have their blind followers believing they are better off by giving the government more of their money? The ground work has been laid though, with all the bank bashing etc.
Big Kev
7th Feb 2018
3:32pm
I love thism latest horse droppings that the little people are main sharholders through super funds. Little people benefit a small amount in the super they receive, while big end of town benefits most. Also there is significaant shareholding through other and overseas wealth management funds, as well as the big banks. Super funds and all the others also have boards and CEO's with their snout in the trough for ludicrous salaries.

Economics tells you that if you give money to the little man, it will all be spent and go into economy whereas business tax cuts will go to the top end of town with some short term contract positions that'll be laid off as soon as the gamblers known as the share market spook at anything like is happening at the moment.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:18pm
Little people , you mean leprechauns.
Cowboy Jim
7th Feb 2018
4:34pm
Hey Tib - I think he means the Gnomes of Zurich!
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
11:35am
It is about time struggling small businesses got a tax cut as most people running them earn less than they pay their employees.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
11:56am
CaringBigBear I agree, there are also many struggling sole traders who will get a hand up from a tax cut.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
3:43pm
That's what they tell the government but that's not the truth. No one stays in business to earn less than their employees. If they do they're too stupid to own a business.
arbee
7th Feb 2018
4:23pm
Tib, your comments show just how far left you are and that you really have no idea how most small businesses are run.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:25pm
Theyre run badly if I take your comment seriously. By idiots.
arbee
7th Feb 2018
4:28pm
Tib, and you would run a small business successfully, or did you only have the mentality to sit on a production line, and do what the union told you,
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:34pm
If your comments are correct I made more money than you.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:44am
Tib is absolutely right. A tiny handful might run a business while earning unsatisfactory income - either for personal satisfaction, with hope of a later windfall or major growth, or because they can't find a viable alternative. I ran a struggling business because neither my partner nor I could secure satisfying work with no education or qualifications, yet we knew we had ability. We saw ahead and knew that we would eventually enjoy a windfall profit, and we did. And the carried forward losses were heaven-sent. Employees can't use that strategy to cut their taxes.

Business people have access to all sorts of strategies to make it LOOK like their income is lower. Employees have to declare honestly. So it can often LOOK like the owner is earning less than the worker, but it is almost NEVER the case.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
8:51pm
With a 98% failure rate there at a lot of businesses not earning satisfactory income.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
8:05pm
You are displaying a complete lack of comprehension of statistics, OG. 98% of startups fail over time. That does NOT mean that 98% of businesses currently existing are failing.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
8:07pm
However, there are too many small businesses failing or struggling because over-indulgence of big business is allowing them to muscle the smaller competitors out of the market. A very good reason to tax the more profitable businesses and support the battlers better.
libsareliars
7th Feb 2018
12:15pm
Why should they get tax cuts, they don't pay any tax anyway. Also, it doesn't trickle down.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:16pm
It does need to trickle down if given to small business owners to benefit them. But it will trickle down even with big businesses.
Old Man
7th Feb 2018
12:26pm
Yes libsareliars, big business pays tax in accordance with the laws in Australia. The latest figure I could access showed that the banks paid a total of $9.51 billion, Apple paid $74.1 million, Google paid $9.2 million, IKEA paid $14 million, Microsoft paid $31 million. These are the usual suspects accused of dodging tax when Labor supporters wish to spread their lies.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:36pm
And they want to tax the banks more when they should getting those big multinationals to pay more instead.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
6:03pm
Catch up, BigBear. Trickle down was proved a fallacy long ago. Anyone with intelligence knows it can't work. Never has. Never will.
Old Man
7th Feb 2018
12:28pm
How can anyone believe any comment on finance made by the Greens. Again I note that this site has put forward an unbalanced report to discredit the government.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:34pm
Well, its just plain stupidity to think that higher taxes will strengthen the economy. Absolute rubbish. What planet are they living on?? LOL
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:47pm
Higher taxes actually restrict economic activity as there is less money to be spent in the economy. Higher taxes are sometimes used to rein in an over buoyant economy as they cut the supply of money in an economy.

That said bracket creep today is now have a similar effect as raising taxes would.
Old Man
7th Feb 2018
12:53pm
In mentioning bracket creep CaringBigBear, it makes me think of the hypocrisy of Labor. On the one hand they are complaining that bracket creep is costing workers money but on the other hand they complain that wages have not risen in years. One of those statements is a lie as they are contradictory. For those unfamiliar with bracket creep, it's not as bad as Labor wants us to believe. If a worker gets a pay rise that puts them in a higher tax bracket, it's only the amount over the tax bracket that attracts the higher tax. Labor wants us to think that all of the wage is taxed at the higher tax.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
5:25pm
Most people in the fast food industry won't work on weekends now unless they get paid cash as it is simply not worth it to them having t pay all the extra tax.
Rae
8th Feb 2018
10:27am
Old Man you'd have to understand "real" wages and prices.

In fact median wages have deflated since around 1974 in real terms ie what you can buy with them.

Sure you can buy cheap doona covers now for $9 from Big W but try paying $800 rent for a decent house in Sydney or Melbourne.

Wages are rising but not as fast as prices for essentials.

Your car mechanic still earns the same $18.80 to $22 as he did 6 years ago even though you pay $130 an hour for labour to his boss.

Thus the inequality we are seeing begin to savage small businesses selling discretionary products.
Rae
8th Feb 2018
10:28am
In fact car mechanic wages are a prime example of an industry that never had a union and have had stagnant wages for a couple of decades now.
Keith64
7th Feb 2018
12:33pm
How can corporate tax cuts benefit sole traders? They are taxed at personal rates.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
12:43pm
Many small businesses are companies with only a few employees. Sole traders rarely employ people as it is not a good idea to expose all your personal assets to running your business. Most sole traders make little or no income so pay little if any tax.
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
12:45pm
There are about 60,000 sole traders who employ around 1.5m workers who will receive an increase on unincorporated tax discount. This "corporate tax cut" does not include cuts for big businesses for 10 years.
Bottle-O-Rum
7th Feb 2018
12:47pm
"The Australia Institute claims to have no formal political or commercial links and the political bent of its work, which could be variously described as Green Left, Hard Left or Extreme Left, is often disguised in media reports."
“They are a de facto extension of the Australian Greens Party, extensively involved in campaigns around the nation while calling themselves a think tank.
“They should be honest and upfront and admit they are a political organisation masquerading as a think tank.”
The above quotes are directly from The Australian
12:00AM August 22, 2015 Reference:
theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/australia-institute-think-tank-bent-on-undermining-our-economy/news-story/49cf8d7b2d0f00245940f5ab11dcace7?login=1
Kaz
7th Feb 2018
1:16pm
Of cours, the Australian is such an unbiased paper. I wouldn’t quote them if I was you :)
floss
7th Feb 2018
12:50pm
Frank you must believe in the tooth fairy as well.Your statement multinational companies pay a fair tax in Australia even with your greed is god attitude you don 't really believe that
KSS
7th Feb 2018
1:24pm
Where does Old Man say multinational companies pay fair tax in Australia?

He actually says they pay tax according to the law. There's a difference!
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
3:32pm
floss I don't think Old Man stated that he was pleased or displeased at the level of tax these organisations pay. However, I for one don't think IKEA pays as much as it could based on their sales receipts. But to be fair they are relatively new in OZ so may be still be outlaying higher than usual expansion costs? One thing I do know is that should they be doing anything illegal the ATO would crack down.
floss
7th Feb 2018
1:01pm
Sorry Frank my reply was to Old Man ,to compare your self to Old Man was indeed a insult that I will again apologize for.
Old Man
7th Feb 2018
3:30pm
Thank you floss, when replying to my post it would be most helpful if you read it first. Here's what I posted;

"Yes floss, big business pays tax in accordance with the laws in Australia. The latest figure I could access showed that the banks paid a total of $9.51 billion, Apple paid $74.1 million, Google paid $9.2 million, IKEA paid $14 million, Microsoft paid $31 million. These are the usual suspects accused of dodging tax when Labor supporters wish to spread their lies."

Please point out where the word "fair" is included. You may wish to ignore the truth but it's still the truth.
DogLover
7th Feb 2018
1:50pm
Companies earning less than $50 million do receive tax cuts already. Why give extra money to businesses such as Harvey Norman and all others making obscene profits? They will not employ more workers but just pay more to the shareholders. The large company tax cuts in USA will only help the economy for a short time and wil not be a permanent fix. The Wall Street crash yesterday did not "bounce" back but just regained a small percentage of the initial loss.
Rae
7th Feb 2018
5:17pm
The yachts down in the Harbour aren't quite big enough yet perhaps.
Rae
7th Feb 2018
2:21pm
It doesn't make economic sense. Countries with the lowest corporate tax rates are third world nations with a few excessively wealthy and many very poor with levels of poverty unimagined by those who have never visited third world countries.

As I've said before the far right wing is fascist not conservative.
The far left wing is marxist not socialist.

We need a balanced economy with fair and transparent taxation. We no longer have that but we did from WW11 until around 1974. It can be achieved.

Fascists have always attacked the unions because a strong workforce with disposable income is hard to control.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
2:38pm
Our economy will need all the help it can get with interests rising 2% over the next couple of years. Looks like we will have a fall in housing as all those interest only loans mature and convert to principal and interest. Many people are already stretched and with interest rates rising and having to pay back principal as well it doesn't look good for the hosing market.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
2:59pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-06/interest-only-loan-crackdown-could-spark-us-style-meltdown/9400652
Adrianus
7th Feb 2018
3:24pm
Rae,
"Countries with the lowest corporate tax rates are third world nations.."
you're not just repeating what you have read from TAI are you?
That's like saying lawn bowls is the most dangerous sport because it has more injuries and deaths.
Argentina has a 35% rate?
Emirates has a 55% rate?
China 15% - 25% rate?
A country's corp. tax rate has nothing to do with it being a third worlder. The OECD average is around 25%.
A well paid, well trained, highly motivated workforce is the goal of enterprise.
Rae
7th Feb 2018
5:28pm
No Frank I do a lot of travelling, developing and third world included. I also have a son that works in the third world.

If you research though you'll find fascism is on the rise and there are very few social democracies left.

Enterprise might like a well paid, well trained, highly motivated workforce and low taxes.What business person doesn't.

I say go ahead and lower tax rates to 25% but lower them for worker's income too. Top rate of 25%. Not a problem.

We have family corporations I don't object.

I still believe fascism is rising though and the first casualty is always the unions. As a historian I know that for fact.

Go visit a few places with authoritarian governments and you'll see it's fine only if you toe the line, pay the bribes and have a lot of money. Just don't ever be poor or vulnerable there.
Adrianus
8th Feb 2018
11:17am
Rae,
"I say go ahead and lower tax rates to 25% but lower them for worker's income too. Top rate of 25%. Not a problem."

You will be happy to know that this government is also trying to lower individuals' tax rates. :)
BTW, I get around a bit but I still refuse to accept your correlation with authoritarian governments and low tax rates. You're trying to say that a socialist government taxes us more because they love us more. lol
Rae
8th Feb 2018
1:10pm
No Frank I'm saying a Social Democracy can provide a support base of universal education, health and such welfare as unemployment and Aged Pensions.

If you want user pays and no government much at all try some third works islands where 50% can't afford school or medical and if you don't save for your own retirement you starve.

You'll be please to know taxes are very very low. Very small government too and hardly any public service. You'd love it as long as you were wealthy.

Oh and dirt roads but seeing no-one much can afford a car or fuel it doesn't matter that much.
Adrianus
8th Feb 2018
2:43pm
OK Rae, I understand your point and agree to some extent. However, we are not talking about other countries and we should be careful when using them as good or bad examples of what we should be doing here. We are living in a country which provides cash welfare to those on a wage of 30% above the national average, surely you can see something wrong with that?? Why tax workers and give it back as some sort of reward for being dependent?
Our highways will not turn to dust if we reduce taxes and unnecessary welfare. We have financial disincentive to work and financial incentive to become dependent.
Rae
8th Feb 2018
5:41pm
That I agree with Frank. It makes no sense that someone can work 40 hours a week for little more than welfare as a family man in my opinion.

I agree taxes need a complete overhaul.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Feb 2018
6:26pm
We do have financial incentives to become dependant and financial disincentives to work, but I don't think the answer is cutting taxes and welfare. Tax cuts don't typically benefit people whose net incomes are marginally above, equal to or below the level of welfare. They benefit the well off. We have politicians whining about the cost of the aged pension and saying more people should save for retirement, and we have pension system that rewards people richly for NOT saving for retirement and punishes those who do; plus a superannuation tax concession system that loads the coffers of high income earners with big concessions and gives low income earners little or nothing.

The well-heeled are always screaming for more, and complaining about taxes, but the people who need help and incentives most don't pay tax!

What we need is a complete overhaul of our tax and welfare system so that regardless of how low one's hourly pay rate, it's always more beneficial to work than to not work. Cutting taxes won't achieve that. Cutting welfare might, but it would cause social harm because it would leave many who genuinely can't work and earn destitute.

Years ago I read a proposal from an economist who suggested the answer was to restructure the tax system so that there was one relatively high tax rate and you could claim deductions for housing, travel to and from work, costs of searching for job, and a host of other necessities and work-related costs, plus, of course, big deductions for dependants and medical and educational expenses etc, and if your deductions exceeded the tax payable on your income, you received a cheque. He proposed the abolition of welfare as we know it. Those who could not work would still get a tax cheque based on the deductions claimed, but if you worked, a multiplier was applied to your deductions based on hours worked. The system seemed complicated, but in fact it was beautifully simple compared to our current system. The big flaw I saw in it was that it paid sustenance to the disadvantaged in a lump sum each year, so there would be major budgeting problems and problems sustaining oneself between say, losing a job or getting injured and getting your annual tax cheque.

Another variation of that system set a flat tax rate with no deductions but with a very high base threshold and if you earned less than the threshold you got a cheque.

The bottom line is that nothing we've tried so far works. We need a whole new approach. To keep cutting taxes will not solve anything. It just boosts the income of the well off. Someone is going to have to start thinking innovatively,
Adrianus
12th Feb 2018
10:20am
The only fair tax regime would be a reduction in taxes on productivity and an increase on consumption. That is when people will start to think more innovatively.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
5:57pm
That is always the mantra of the privileged, Frank, but it is socially devastating. You can't FORCE people who have suffered major disadvantage to think innovatively by starving them out, anymore than you can cure poverty by starving the poor. A fair tax system is a progressive tax system, coupled with a strong welfare system that rewards people for striving and limits assistance to the lazy and irresponsible.

The way to support innovation is to recognize ability and stop relying on pieces of paper to determine someone's capacity and earning entitlement. Let people demonstrate their ability rather than having to invest years and dollars in acquiring worthless bits of paper that declare only that they sat in a classroom and absorbed a lot of data that may or may not have been accurate.

The most innovative man I ever met was poverty-stricken. He devised a fool-proof way to stop the spread of blackberries decades before anyone even acknowledged control was possible. He could tame the wildest horse without touching it. He made whips that were an exquisite work of art. He built a power plant in the middle of nowhere to power his home. But he was shunned and scorned at every turn because he was not formally educated. He told the government how to end the blackberry problem, and he was laughed at. Sadly, he's one of tens of thousands who have solutions for all kinds of problems but can't get a hearing. I know inventors whose patents were stolen and buried because they were ''commercially disruptive''.

You are NEVER going to create innovation by favouring the privileged, and that's all tax cuts - whether based on productivity or otherwise - can ever do.
moke
7th Feb 2018
2:34pm
Just watch the big boys put the benefits in their pockets, no extra jobs and the gov will try to cut welfare and pensions. To those that have so shall it be given and down go the poor again.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
2:52pm
Even if they use it to buy expensive toys then that money will find it's way back into the economy. Remember they have to do something with the extra money.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
3:47pm
The wealthy invest it and they don't share. If you want money to go straight back into the economy you give it to the poor they spend every dollar they get.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
4:00pm
The poor may spend it but most use it in the black market and not even GST gets paid.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:23pm
The black market? You have a serious mental health issue.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
4:42pm
Yes over 50% of spending around here occurs in the black market.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
5:19pm
Let me guess you live in Tasnania.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
5:24pm
No I don't live in Tasmania but in a much warmer climate that most people called paradise. Biggest problem around here now it is over loved by tourists all year round.
Rae
7th Feb 2018
5:43pm
The money is going overseas. Just look to the balance of payments. We hardly own anything. My extra will be invested in our company, overseas shares and bonds. We don't need extra workers.

And yes the States will struggle to fund services so we'll have GST increases and land taxes.
Adrianus
8th Feb 2018
11:48am
CaringBigBear, you're wasting your time trying to explain it. The hatred of big business and small medium bus, runs too deep. Sure they shop at Coles and Woolworths and use banking services, fill their cars at the servo, but they do it with a scowl and a tight fist. The extent of the jealousy and hatred cannot be easily explained but none the less it exists and it is their only comfort in a world where they feel they have no control over their own destiny. They resent the fact that a leader of industry is paid $5m pa. They believe that he is the one controlling their destiny. They are urged to hate success because to do otherwise would destroy their true masters.
VeryCaringBigBear
9th Feb 2018
7:44am
Success on the sporting field is admired but success in anything else is shunned. People today will cut down the tall poppy rather than strive to do better themselves.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
6:12pm
That's rubbish, BigBear. When I was a child, we adored the business operators who looked after their employees like family and cared enough to give someone in genuine need a handout here and there. One of them told me we would curse the day supermarkets came to town and wish we could go back to the slightly higher prices that prevailed before. He was right. Yes, we do despise the multi-national monsters that have pushed small business out, treat employees poorly, dodge their tax obligations, and pay their top execs and directors mega-millions while pleading too poor to pay their workers fairly.

Globalisation, franchising and business takeovers have not served society well, and people can't be blamed for resenting the downgrading of social health that has resulted.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
6:54pm
I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the old days where everything was in short supply and you have to wait months and sometimes years for goods. When I was first married I had to wait 9 months for some lino for our kitchen floor and 2 years for a table and chairs. Everyone thought we had over extended ourselves and couldn't afford them so it was difficult to explain and their faces telling you they didn't believe you.

I also used to hate been given rotten fruit, broken biscuits and weevilly flour. Yup just remembered those chocolates gone white as they were passed their use by date.

Thank goodness for the variety and choice we have today.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
6:43pm
Somehow, your story doesn't add up. If things weren't available, everyone would know that, so nobody would disbelieve you. More of your illogical nonsense, OG. And utter rubbish about the food!

I grew in a poverty-stricken family in a small country town and we never once had rotten fruit or weevilly flour. We did have broken biscuits. They were wonderful! We got them half price because they were broken and they tasted no different than the whole ones. Chocolates gone white? We never had much in the way of sweets, but I never heard anyone complain. We used to suck the honeysuckle flowers for a sugar hit. Yum!

Waiting months for lino and furniture - yep! Because it took that long to save for it. It was there to buy for anyone who had money. I looked at it longingly in shop windows often. Today, I'm thankful for the lessons in patience and saving and for the huge delight when I finally acquired something I'd wanted for a long time. I was NEVER embarrassed about not being able to afford things, and I'd NEVER have worried what anyone else thought, because the people in my world respected us for working and striving and being patient and appreciative of what we had.

Yes, it WAS a great world back then. Grocer delivered the order and even unpacked it into cupboards for elderly ladies. Checked on everyone's health and well-being. Reported back to the boss and got a hamper for anyone in crisis. Let the womenfolk know if someone was sick or invalid and we took meals around and made sure they were cared for. Men cut wood and mowed lawns for widows and women did the washing and cleaning and cooking for widowers and men whose wives were sick or incapacitated. The local dressmaker repaired clothes donated by the well-off and gave them to the poor.

I'd go back to the wonderful old days in a heartbeat if I could. Supermarkets are just high prices, impersonal service, and far too much unhealthy rubbish driving obesity and high medical bills and increased hardship among those with little discipline to resist the many temptations. And now automation that's taking away jobs, while greedy corporations engage in price slashing wars to push out smaller competitors and avoid paying fair taxes.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
3:55pm
Companies in Australia don't pay their tax , the people who work for a living pick up most of the tax bill.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/corporate-tax-data-released-by-ato/9236878
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
3:58pm
How come people in Australia invested in Australian companies get dividends cheques with franking credits (tax paid at 30%) then?
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:22pm
CaringBigbear Read the article I provided properly and stop making so many silly comments.
VeryCaringBigBear
7th Feb 2018
5:34pm
So some companies have a gross income but after expenses they have no net income. Therefore no tax is payable. No profit no tax. That's how our tax system works.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
8:11pm
Yes and I'm actually the tooth fairy.
Sundays
8th Feb 2018
6:26pm
No tax payable by them, but plenty by their employees!
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
6:07pm
No net income, because they claim all sorts of things that SHOULD be counted as profit. A relative claimed lower income from a business than I was getting as a low wage earner, so I asked how he could afford two new luxury cars every year. ''Oh, leased to the business'' was his reply. And the private school fees? ''Come out of the family trust as income for the kids''. Bottom line - if he'd had FOUR TIMES the income I was earning, he wouldn't have been able to afford HALF the luxuries he and his family enjoyed. But he made no net income and he paid no tax.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
7:29pm
Well all I'll say Rainey that you could have done the same as it's all legal and above board.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
6:28pm
Yes, OG,. that's the canned response of the arrogant privileged. ''You should have done it too''. No consideration for the fact that some people are beaten about by life in ways that prevent them doing anything much but working to keep their family fed. And some have a moral conscience that prevents them doing what is inherently wrong, whether legal or not.

Obviously, you have no experience of inherent or generational hardship and no empathy whatsoever to try to learn about the realities of life for others. Just keep on with your arrogant and cruel remarks based on nonsense assumptions that could only be made by the ignorant well-off.

Legal doesn't mean ''above board', much less ethical or moral. In fact, most legal conduct in regard to taxes is unethical, immoral and socially harmful in the extreme. It is condoned only by the greedy and self-serving. And the system that makes it legal - devised by those who benefit most from it - is destroying the world.
Big Al
7th Feb 2018
4:05pm
All you oldies spouting off on this topic ought to consider what happens if tax rates are cut. Presumably companies benefitting from a reduction in corporate tax rates are going to do one of three things; firstly use the additional cash retained to invest in the business thus creating additionally jobs. Or, they could increase the dividend returns to shareholders (which would benefit everyone's superannuation account). Now only a moron would argue that either of these two outcomes is not desirable. Lastly, they could be greedy little so and so's and pay the higher retained earnings to senior management and directors' stipends. I would suggest that you Lefties should get the Opposition to start thinking of strategies to curtail such an outcome - it is scandalous how much some of these CEO's remuneration packages have got to. However, if we accept that we are in a global village, and we want to remain internationally competitive, the we cant afford to have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world - that is a no-brainer, but try telling that to Short-on ideas!
Rae
7th Feb 2018
5:46pm
Share buybacks and bonuses are very desirable. So is 25% top tax for business and income.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:46am
Big Al, in the UK, companies that enjoyed huge tax reductions reported that they did neither. They boosted directors' and senior executive salaries and gave them massive additional benefits such as luxury cars and travel.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:15pm
Multinationals don't pay their fair share.
http://www.smh.com.au/money/multinationals-still-dont-pay-fair-share-in-tax-despite-81m-taxpayerfunded-ads-20170919-gyk9ic.html
Placido
7th Feb 2018
4:27pm
Looks like the givers of tax cuts to Big Business think they can increase taxes on the over 60's and include the primary residence in asset tests to make up the shortfall. Gotta go and create a family trust NOW!
Rae
7th Feb 2018
5:51pm
Yes indeed Placido. The no tax at all over 60 thingie Howard started is far from fair or sustainable and certainly won't last.

I suggest people stop spending and start buying corporations if you want to join the party going on now.

Trusts are indeed sensible if your assets warrant it.
Raphael
7th Feb 2018
4:16pm
SHows how stupid the average Ozzie is - taken in by the lies of the left
Or the tax institute poll is bullshit
For Australia's sake I hope its the latter
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:40am
No. Not taken in. Observed what happened elsewhere when taxes have been cut. California boomed after RAISING them. Kansas economy collapsed. UK has the lowest in the world now, and the top 2% are partying and the rest of the nation is stuffed. Tax cuts DO NOT WORK to build economies. They just help the greedy.

There was a doco recently in which they interviewed very rich citizens, and every one of them admitted openly that they spent their windfall from tax cuts on very high end luxury goods bought abroad. They then interviewed CEOs of high-income corporations, and all admitted they used tax savings to increase top executive and board member salaries and - even more so - benefits such as lavish cars and travel. All doubted a single cent had flowed down to benefit the nation's overall economy.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
3:09pm
Rainey do you have a negative answer to everything? You must lead a very negative life indeed with such an attitude.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
6:01pm
OG, it's NOT a negative answer. It's FACT. Sorry that LNP trolls don't like it. The greedy rich don't like it. Gullible people who believe the lies told by LNP trolls and the greedy rich don't like it.

IT IS FACT.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
6:56pm
Fact unfortunately begins with same letter as fiction too.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Feb 2018
6:36pm
And information starts with the same letter as IGNORANCE. You are full of the latter and have no respect for the former, OG.
arbee
7th Feb 2018
4:19pm
I thought I would see in my original comment just how many left wing, rabid union lovers would crawl out from under their rocks and have a go at me, quite a few of them, but also a lot of sensible comments as well in regards to how this would grow our economy and create more jobs. All these bogans want is to take down all of the bosses and successful companies to create their own dream of a union controlled utopia. We have all seen though that unions are better at creating hell on earth rather than utopias.
Placido
7th Feb 2018
4:29pm
Yep thats why the union super funds do so much better than the banks and insurance companies so much so that theTurnbull coalition want to to take control of those funds.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:32pm
It's the same in Australia as it is in the US the far right are just red necks. As far as the rest of your comment.....yawn. I suspect if you wanted $2 you would have to get a loan for one.
Cowboy Jim
7th Feb 2018
4:49pm
Maybe if anyone on the full pension would lose the right to vote might give these lefties something to whinge about. Instead of being grateful of getting the pension they moan about anyone getting a part pension or just doing a bit better then them. For Tib, giving to the poor only means we should buy shares in the distillers and brewers and the gaming industry. Here we do have separate entrances in the pubs so they can get to the pokies before the bar opens and they do not have to pass face tests.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
5:23pm
Cowboy apparently they eat food as well. But I don't begrudge the poor their pension even though I will never get so much as a part pension.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Feb 2018
6:34pm
Cowboy Jim, it's obvious you don't know much about poverty - either what it looks like or what causes it. Yes, of course we have a percentage of the population who are poor because they gamble and/or drink. Most of them are NOT poor. They have incomes adequate to sustain a good lifestyle if they didn't over-indulge.

The REAL poor are those born with or incurring severe incapacity or illness or those who experience major crisis in their lives that interfere with their earning capacity. Many of them are very responsible and frugal. Many never gamble or drink. I agree these people should be grateful for their pension and shouldn't whinge about people getting a part pension or doing a bit better than them. Most I've had anything to do with ARE grateful and DO NOT whinge. But they have every right to complain about being denigrated unfairly, and I certainly would never support calls to reduce or restrict help to those who are genuinely disadvantaged. I think it's rather cruel and nasty to suggest that giving to them is like buying shares in brewers and the gaming industry. That's a very unfair and hurtful generalization.
Raphael
7th Feb 2018
4:27pm
The lefties are frothing at the mouth again

How about lowering taxes and shrinking the government , you leftie dumbasses
Placido
7th Feb 2018
4:34pm
Go Raphael! Lets shrink as many seats as we can from the dishonest lot in government right now, if a degree was available for lying and misrepresentation they would all pass with flying colours.

Thank you for your articulate comments.
Tib
7th Feb 2018
4:36pm
Hi Raphael how's your day been so far ;)
Tib
7th Feb 2018
5:33pm
I do agree I would like to see less government. I would like to get rid of state governments all together and dramatically reduce the number of councils. I also think I could go through and reduce government expenditure dramatically. Also I would stop giving money to some of these fringe groups that are a waste of good oxygen. But I would also have a close look at tax there are too many avoiding paying a reasonable level of tax. I think the closer you look the more dodgy deals you will find. And that's just a start.
Raphael
7th Feb 2018
5:38pm
I’m good Tib - thanks for asking

Just saddened by the stupidity of the left
How do we help these poor bugger increase their intelligence levels
Adrianus
8th Feb 2018
11:27am
Hong Kong has the highest average intelligence on earth. Australia lags well behind. I think there is a strong inverse correlation between self sufficiency and dependence with regard to the two groups.
4b2
7th Feb 2018
8:01pm
No way. I don't trust this mob at all.
Old Geezer
8th Feb 2018
7:35am
Good move as small business owners could do with a tax break. Far too many earn less than their employees. Big business will only get a tax break if they actually pay tax.
ex PS
8th Feb 2018
10:18am
The reason they earn less than their employees is so that they can reduce tax, they generally live of the revenue produced by the business before tax by putting expenses through the business and spread there profits throughout the family to make sure their income is under tax thresholds. Yes on paper they look like they are earning less than they do.
Business profitability is up 20%, looking at wage stagnation, it is hard to see how trickle down theory is working.
Old Geezer
8th Feb 2018
10:37am
Many small businesses are family run businesses and are run by the whole family so why shouldn't they all share in the profits of their business.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:30am
They should all share, OG, and they should all HONESTLY DECLARE what they receive for their work and HONESTLY PAY TAX on it. But they DO NOT.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
3:06pm
I haven't seen a small business where they didn't all share the work as well as the income. Most work far harder and long hours than any employee does so deserve a fair return for their efforts.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
5:58pm
Fair return, yes. But not tax dodges that others can't access.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
6:44pm
Anything expenses that you have in relation to your business are allowed as business deductions. If the government told you you could only run a business with a certain haircut then the cost of that haircut is a business deduction.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Feb 2018
5:59pm
And business operators claim a host of things that are NOT related to the business, but can be made to appear to be. Who is able to verify every claim?
Knows-a-lot
8th Feb 2018
1:06pm
Blame the verminous Liberal government for this.
Blossom
8th Feb 2018
2:38pm
It is the small businesses who need tax cuts more than middle range, the big companies seem to find ways of paying less tax than they should. Health Care in general - not just hospitals, education, genuinely needed infastructure, law & order all need more financial assistance.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
11:47am
The CEO of Qantas claimed the tax cuts would allow them to buy more planes and fly more routes. How? They have paid $0 tax for years!!!!
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
3:04pm
They have had big losses for years too.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
5:59pm
You miss the point, OG. How are they going to buy more planes and fly more routes with an extra $0000 dollars?
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
6:40pm
It is obvious you have no idea how tax is levied Rainey from that statement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
8:01pm
On the contrary, OG, I am something of an expert on the subject. And I know you can't buy planes with $0000. Only an idiot believes you can.
Big Al
9th Feb 2018
3:48pm
So Old Genuine Rainey, there are over 100,000 small businesses in this country, and you apparently feel qualified to state categorically that none of them are paying their fair share of tax. What a marvel you are, with such acumen, insight and knowledge of the affairs of so many Aussies - ever thought of offering your services to the Tax Commissioner with your remarkable insight?
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
3:56pm
Can Rainey also tell us why 98% of business fail within the first 2 years if they are all so profitable?
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Feb 2018
6:23pm
Big Al, you are twisting my words. I said no such thing EVER. Of course there are small businesses struggling and there are some business people paying tax honestly, I'm sure, though I suspect they are in the minority given all the easy loopholes available to the self-employed but not to wage earners.

What I said is that tax cuts have been proved conclusively NOT TO WORK to stimulate economic growth. They failed in the UK. They failed in Kansas. Tax hikes worked in California. High taxes work in Scandinavian countries. Higher taxes actually delivered prosperity in Australia in the 50s and 60s.

There are better ways to help struggling businesses than tax cuts. In fact, the strongest argument AGAINST tax cuts is struggling businesses don't get any benefit from them. You don't pay tax unless you make healthy profits, so the benefits go to those who are prospering. And it's those who are prospering who are most likely to manipulate to pay less tax than they should, and most likely to greedily pocket any extra benefit and not pass it on to employees or invest it.

Similarly, tax cuts for wage earners benefit those who earn healthy wages - not the strugglers. Now if cuts were accompanied by legislation to pay negative tax refunds to those who don't earn enough to pay tax, that might make sense.

Small business failures are high in the first 2 years, OG, because people start businesses without doing due diligence, or grossly mismanage them. Tax cuts will not help people who fail in business. They don't pay tax because they never make profit.
Old Geezer
9th Feb 2018
6:39pm
Negative tax refunds is tax payable by another name. I certainly don't want negative tax refunds.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Feb 2018
7:52am
Why should the government support struggling businesses i.e. the ones that don't pay tax? Makes sense to me to support those who are doing well and paying their taxes. Why shouldn't businesses be allowed to claim their expenses of running the business as a tax deduction?

Leasing cars does help cut ones taxes and save cash flow. However whether they stack up well against owning the car is debatable.

Some people hate the idea of paying taxes and they are happy if the bottom line is no tax payable. However most would be better off cutting unnecessary expenses and paying a little tax.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
8:02pm
Struggling businesses are often the ones that grow biggest and pay most tax over time, BigBear. Giving them a helping hand when they need it is common sense. Handing out to businesses that don't need help is absurdly stupid. If they don't need help, they won't use handouts to benefit the economy.
Big Al
9th Feb 2018
11:05pm
Old Genuine Rainey - you are the master of paradox! You state that Australia was a high taxing country in the 50s and 60s - well might I remind you who was in government during that period - a bloke called Menzies - ring any bells? Now my understanding is that Labor are the big taxers, and the Libs miserly in this department. Would you like to review your comments now OGR, or will you continue to remain oblivious to facts?
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Feb 2018
7:59pm
I don't care who was in power, BigAl. It's irrelevant. What is significant is that higher taxes generated greater prosperity and happiness, and lowering taxes is failing worldwide. And anyone with a brain could predict that, because lower taxes ONLY benefits the well off, and the well off are NEVER going to share their wealth.
Adrianus
12th Feb 2018
10:13am
OGR, Big Al has a point. One of the main reasons for increasing taxes at war time was to reduce consumer spending.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
5:45pm
And the key reason why they should be increased now is to reduce inequality, which is recognized as the greatest threat we face to both economic prosperity and social health.
Fready
10th Feb 2018
4:47pm
This week it was reported that in the USA several CEOs earned 140 times what the lowest employee in the organisation earned. The tax cuts would have a "trickle down" effect if there was a law limiting the salary of the highest paid person in an organisation to say 30 times that of the lowest paid (on a 40 hour equivalent).
Adrianus
12th Feb 2018
12:18pm
Fready, applying limitations and restrictions on the level of remuneration is pretty silly when you think about it. Firstly it cannot be policed because it is directly influenced by market forces. And secondly humanity's progress depends on people's freedom to reach the top of their chosen careers.
Rather than penalising CEO's for their success, why not look for potential CEO's in all corners of the globe?
How would you stop say Paul McCartney from earning as much as he does? He's one of the worlds highest paid CEOs.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
5:44pm
Actually, Frank, there is a nation in Europe where they brought in a law that nobody could ever be paid more than N times the income of the lowest paid employee. I forget what N was, but I think 6 or maybe 8. The rule also applied to government. Nobody elected to public office can be paid more than N times pensioners/ratepayers or whomever else they serve.

It made the nation the most prosperous and socially healthy in the world. And it's not at all hard to police.

Market forces have nothing to do with the shockingly excessive salaries paid to CEOs and directors. Nobody is worth that amount. It's just exploitation of customers and shareholders. It's immoral and unethical in the extreme and it's way past time it was stopped.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Feb 2018
7:35pm
As for people's ''freedom to reach the top of their chosen careers''... nothing is more disheartening and discouraging than the current environment where unless you are among the privileged few, your job is constantly at risk and you are constantly being asked to give more for less reward so that the fat cats at the top can be more indulgent of their own greed. Progress has reduced and poverty and social problems increased because of hideous inequality.

Few are resentful of extraordinarily talented people who generate their own wealth - like Paul McCartney, who cannot in any way be compared with the average CEO. The majority of overpaid CEOs are leeches who do nothing more than half the rest of the underpaid staff could do given half a chance. In fact, many demand millions to leave after destroying a business.
Adrianus
13th Feb 2018
2:00pm
OK, so entertainers are excluded because nobody resents them, they are talented and create their own wealth. That could be said of half the CEO's. We have professional sportsman who are restricted in what the club can pay them. The NRL have salary caps and yet the rich clubs are always getting the best players and winning each year.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Feb 2018
6:14pm
Frank, I am not an expert on the reasons for salary caps for sportsmen, but clearly there are reasons. My concern if that CEOs of corporations like Australia Post, Telstra, many big banks, etc. run companies into the ground but are paid millions to do it and then millions to leave. Their salaries are NOT justified in any way, shape or form. They are obscenely excessive and the inequality they create is economically and socially destructive. The world's most eminent leaders and economists are in agreement on that point.
Big Al
12th Feb 2018
9:29pm
OGR, I have no idea what part of the country you are from (and I don't particularly care). I live on the 'right' side of the Murray, and I look across the border and see what is happening in Victoria. There the good citizens of that state, have installed a moron as premier. He 'gave' a consortium more than a billion dollars not to build a road. He oversaw the development of a Desal plant that cost more than double its original supposed cost, and has yet to deliver one litre of water (at a cost of in excess of 3 billion). And you are arguing the point that you want to give more money, funding and power to these economic vandals! How does this help the average person in the street? You are as barking mad as the politicians that are frittering away your money. I hope you will all be happy together!
Adrianus
13th Feb 2018
1:54pm
Big Al, it's a thing with Marxists, they're always thinking of new ways to stop people from being successful. Everyone should be the same and rely on government for their survival. They don't understand that there are mostly able bodied, able minded people who need to be productive.
musicveg
14th Feb 2018
9:25pm
Here is a petition that might interest some people, the Government hands out funding to companies that help others avoid paying tax!!: https://actions.sumofus.org/a/stop-funding-the-masterminds-of-tax-avoidance


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles