Economists warn against company tax cuts

The Government's defence of proposed company tax cuts is becoming untenable.

Economists warn against company tax cuts

The debate over company tax cuts is heating up ahead of the Federal Budget, with the Coalition seemingly fighting an uphill battle to get its gift to big business through to the keeper.

If you believe the Government’s party line, its corporate tax cut will save the economy through an assumed philanthropic attitude demonstrated by the beneficiaries of the concession.

Yet history has proven otherwise. Australia experienced its lowest unemployment in the 50s when the company tax rate was 46 per cent. Right now, it’s 30 per cent and the Government wants to drop it to 25 per cent.

While the Government may believe that big business will use the money made through tax cuts to create new jobs, re-invest in businesses and potentially keep manufacturing onshore, the reality will probably be different. The cuts are more likely lead to share buybacks, increased dividends to shareholders, profits heading offshore, and mergers and acquisitions that will only serve to widen the gap between rich and poor.

The proposal to cut company tax has its supporters, mainly the Government. Some MPs are willing to support the tax cuts to a certain extent, such as Senator Derryn Hinch, who supports a tax cut for companies with a turnover of up to $500 million – but only if banks are excluded.

Should tax cuts go through, banks stand to earn up to $9.5 billion a year. Seems a strange reward for the unscrupulous acts and scandals being highlighted in the royal commission into banking.

Senator Pauline Hanson has also weighed in on the debate. She wants savings made by banks from tax cuts to fund the stability of the financial system, so taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill should banks crash. And she also believes the savings should be used to compensate victims of dodgy banking practices.

“I would like to see the money quarantined from the company tax cuts,” said Ms Hanson.

“That the money is actually paid back to those people who have suffered at the hands of the banks.”

Senator Hanson said the banks should also cover the cost of the royal commission.

Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer doesn’t think a “new taxation system that's based on a morality tax” is the answer.

“I mean, let's get a little bit real here,” she told ABC’s Insiders yesterday.

Independent Senator Tim Storer stymied passage of the tax cuts legislation last month. Labor and the Greens also oppose the tax cuts, but the Government is determined to revive the concessions. Labor Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh published a paper that shows companies paying less than 25 per cent tax are shedding jobs while those that pay more than 25 per cent are growing their workforce by around two per cent a year.

“Across a cross-section of profitable Australian firms, I find no evidence that those which pay a lower effective rate of tax create more jobs,” wrote Mr Leigh.

Even voters – including Coalition voters – are opposed to it, say the findings of a recent Australia Institute survey.

And while the Government’s position on company tax cuts may already have been difficult to defend, it could now be almost untenable.

However, economists say that there's a way to get tax right so that society benefits – potentially, most of all, age pensioners. 

An open letter signed by 47 economists and prominent Australians has told the Government that ripping revenue from the economy is not the answer, stating that Australia has a revenue problem and that we should be looking to increase tax intake not reduce it.

The public would be the victims of this shortfall and the only way to make it up would be to raise other taxes and to cut public services.

The letter’s signatories believe that a strong society, with a solid education, health and infrastructure spend is the best way to create jobs and growth. Tax cuts would only serve to increase inequality, damage Australia’s innovation program and lead to stagnant growth. The group claims that we should be looking to increase taxes, bringing the country up to OECD tax levels so we can improve society, not just the balances of shareholders and power portfolios of corporate chief executives. In fact, Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in all of the OECD.

Even the Government’s intergenerational report, used to create modelling for its economic policy, shows that current taxation levels will keep us in the red for at least three more decades.

A article written by The Australia Institute’s Executive Director Ben Oquist, published in The Sydney Morning Herald, explained how findings from a research paper from his colleagues Rod Campbell and Cameron Murray revealed that “if Australia had the same tax to GDP ratio as the United Kingdom we could triple the Age Pension.”

Mr Oquist wrote: “If we had OECD average levels of tax we could build two new NBNs every year. If we had the same tax level as Denmark, we could increase education and health spending fourfold.”

The debate over company tax cuts will rage on until the Federal Budget, and yet to this point it seems the ‘nays’ have it. 

Do you think company tax cuts are the answer? Is the Government fighting a losing battle? Why do you think it keeps trying to push a policy that is A: so unpopular and B: one which has so much evidence piled against it?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:46am
    Company tax should be cut back to 15%.

    Why should the banks take the blame because people too on too much risk and lost? If so then shareholders should be compensated because the Royal Commission caused bank share prices to fall.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:05pm
    It's a little thing called 'duty of care', Ebergeezer. You can play that 'buyer beware' game as long as you like, but businesses have responsibilities and duties and codes to adhere to.

    Shareholders are not in the same category - and they should rightly blame the banks for any falls - especially if those falls are created by their own malfeasance. In fact, you are one of the first to argue that the 'shareholders' own the company - so you own its mis-deeds as well.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:34pm
    So you haven't noticed the shareholders of AMP have now set up a class action because of the royal Commission?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:53pm
    Really? No, I didn't know that, OG. As a minor shareholder, I guess I should investigate.

    Trebor, I agree companies have a ''duty of care''. And shareholders DO own the company, but minor shareholders can't be responsible for the conduct of the company. They are unlikely even to know about it. I learned that Adelaide & Bendigo Bank was treating customers disgracefully, being very dishonest, so I sold my shares in it. But I only found out because I helped one of their clients to sort out some problems they caused. Otherwise, how would I know?

    The Directors and executives should be personally liable to the shareholders if their misconduct causes shareholder losses. They should have to pay the damages out of their personal wealth. They take enough when the going is good!
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:53pm
    Really? No, I didn't know that, OG. As a minor shareholder, I guess I should investigate.

    Trebor, I agree companies have a ''duty of care''. And shareholders DO own the company, but minor shareholders can't be responsible for the conduct of the company. They are unlikely even to know about it. I learned that Adelaide & Bendigo Bank was treating customers disgracefully, being very dishonest, so I sold my shares in it. But I only found out because I helped one of their clients to sort out some problems they caused. Otherwise, how would I know?

    The Directors and executives should be personally liable to the shareholders if their misconduct causes shareholder losses. They should have to pay the damages out of their personal wealth. They take enough when the going is good!
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:25pm
    Precisely, Rainey - I was just pointing out the obvious to OG - as usual.

    I agree that those running the show should bear the lion's share of responsibility - and not just via some pat on the back of the hand...

    OG's comment about how the banks were transferring that L:IABILITY in financial planning over to 'new' companies while still retaining a stranglehold on those 'new' companies, is one reason I've been saying that there is a need to change company law and how such deals are done.

    It is too easy to offload responsibility while still getting cash out of it, and then saying "not us - it's them!".

    Governments do the same things with privatisation.. offload all care and responsibility, and then pretend that even when they remain the major shareholder, they have no responsibility for anything, even the price hikes the approve.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:03pm
    OG....you are clearly a rich man looking after number 1. Sad for you and at the same time angry that you think crapping on people who cannot afford to live any more is anything other than evil. Making a statement about yourself mate!
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    8:36am
    Mick, there's been an awful lot of the ''cannot afford to live'' crapping on people for what seems to be regarded as a crime - working and saving for retirement and trying to self-fund as far as possible. Certainly the Labor Party is now crapping on them big time, and it's rather disgraceful that pensioners are supporting that, and many of them being abusive in doing so.
    Hoohoo
    24th Apr 2018
    1:13pm
    Whoever lied to ASIC should be blamed. Individual shareholders should be exempt from blame.

    But this is the problem with corporations - no-one is EVER held personally responsible for any wrong-doing because they can hide behind "Propriety Limited".

    It doesn't matter if they break the law. If they have to cop a fine they just build that cost into their business. Problem solved.
    Then they put their hand out for a big fat bonus AND GET IT!
    GeorgeM
    24th Apr 2018
    3:31pm
    MICK is right, OG is merely making a statement about himself.
    Even Banks are admitting they are guilty every day at the RC, but not OG!

    Duty of care to Customers is paramount, as is the Boards and Managements' responsibility to shareholders. Those who cheated and those who shut their eyes to the dishonest behaviour, including ASIC people, should be dealt with severely!
    They have to ensure the consequences are strong as a deterrent to future such dishonest behaviours - just like the system punishes small criminals!

    While they are at it, the motivation, i.e. Greed based on excessively large salaries and even larger bonuses / incentives, MUST be severely addressed, in favour of more limited incentives focused on Customer Satisfaction measured independently with reduced focus on profits (it is still important but not the only factor as at present).
    GeorgeM
    24th Apr 2018
    3:52pm
    Important points to note are "Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in all of the OECD", and “if Australia had the same tax to GDP ratio as the United Kingdom we could triple the Age Pension.”.
    For those who don't know, in USA in addition to Federal taxes, States also levy taxes, hence the headline rate for Federal tax rates are not valid for comparison.

    Also, even USA has had a Minimum Tax system for a very long time, due to which even Trump (with massive back losses to claim) had to pay $150 Million taxes in 2005.
    MINIMUM TAX is badly overdue here with a large number of companies (especially many large ones) and wealthy NOT PAYING ANY or paying NEGLIGIBLE Taxes.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    25th Apr 2018
    8:06am
    OG is unfortunately not that wrong. I personally know of one woman who makes a living out of compensation from companies who she says have done the wrong thing by her. Sadly she is now using social media very successfully to further feather her nest and showing others how to do the same. She uses crowd funding to support her court cases and pay her lawyers etc. People with similar problems to hers gladly contribute. If you say one word against her you are tarred and feathered. I am hoping karma will eventually stop her but she also plays on the fact that she is ill and doesn't know how long she can support others etc.

    Sadly we live in a world where once people for gave others now they sue them.
    Mindy
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:14am
    Many seem to forget that most Australians are shareholders in the big banks and companies via our Superannuation. Bit rich to demonise shareholders then.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:41am
    If Shorten has his way, Mindy, only the wealthy will be able to invest in Australian companies. Oh, and the pensioner elite! Struggling self-funded retirees are already demonized, and now Shorten wants to demolish their lifestyle - claiming that taking a few thousand in franking credits off them will help the budget. Not sure how the idiot thinks he's going to pay the tens of thousands in pensions he'll then have to pay to the 100,000+ whose lifestyle he demolished with double taxation.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:53am
    OGR Have you read how Shorten wants to unionise the whole country? If this proposal gets through it will send many small businesses to the wall and big businesses off shore. Basically if you are not a worker in this country or on welfare you will be stuffed.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:00pm
    OG, I'm currently reading Hitler's life story, and about the rise of Nazi Germany, and I'm amazed at the similarities between Hitler's approach to society and the economy and Shorten's. Scary!
    Dave R
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:13pm
    Oh my goodness this thread is full of Liberal Party trolls.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:14pm
    There was an article over the weekend that spelled out his unionistic policy.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:50pm
    No, Dave R. There are a few intelligent and responsible folk here who don't believe that they are entitled to be fed and clothed and housed by others and do nothing for themselves, but then scream that workers and savers should be robbed and plunged into poverty.

    Funny thing is, Dave R, that it's people like you who will suffer most when you finally get what you want. When the nation is stuffed because of your greed, there will be nothing to give the welfare bludgers. I sincerely hope we'll still find ways to care for the genuinely needy, respectful and appreciative, but I will enjoy seeing the likes of you begging. You richly deserve to suffer the fate you wish on others.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:07pm
    Utter rubbish OG - if all businesses were unionised, all that would happen is that the rip-off merchants masquerading as business people would be caught out.

    No business would be 'sent to the wall' by having to ensure they pay correct rates of pay and conditions - unless they are already non-viable.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:38pm
    Perhaps you should find it and read it instead of blindly commenting. Businesses should have the right to sack workers and what business can afford to pay a person 14 days leave because they have a black eye? Casual means casual not permanent too. I certainly wouldn't employ anyone under the conditions Shorten wants to bring in. I occasionally get in a lady to do some cleaning but I wouldn't be allowed to do that as I would have to employ her regularly and I couldn't sack her either. Thank goodness for the black market as I will need to use it.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:44pm
    Have no fear, Mindy - once the thieves in the banks are sorted out and an honest deal is offered that people can trust - business will boom, and so will returns.

    One day they may all wake up to the simple fact that when you are dealing with people, trust is a big part of it, and not just how much you can rob them of.

    Your current position is like saying it's better top retain a dishonest police force than to create an honest one.... just because of some short-term disruption in getting rid of the crooks.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:55pm
    Businesses have the right to sack workers fairly - not just on some arbitrary whim.

    Equally it should be argued that if a business manager was not up job - he/she should be sacked by the workers.. fair's fair, eh?

    If fourteen days off for a black eye is within entitlement such as sick leave - that's how it is.

    Typical of you to advocate serfdom and a massively divided society headed for the guillotine for the fat... but stoopid is as stoopid does...
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:14pm
    Not if Labor gets into power they wont.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:30pm
    Oh no no no no no, they DON'T, Trebor. The unfair dismissal laws are hideously UNFAIR to employers and protect useless bludgers and trouble-makers. I've seen instances of people taking a job just so they can plot to get an unfair dismissal payout. A judge told me 90% of employers just pay ''piss off money'' (pardon the language) because it costs far too much to defend, no matter how strong the defence.

    A couple of cases I saw - an employee sued for unfair dismissal after being sacked for flatly REFUSING to work unless the employer replaced a near-new and perfectly operational $150,000 computer network with a network the employee preferred, because he had lied on his resume and couldn't operate the one the employer had.

    A girl sued for ''constructive dismissal'' claiming the employer forced her out with unfair work demands. The employer had objected to her being late every day, taking 2 hour lunch breaks, and spending hours on her mobile phone daily talking to friends.

    Another man sued for ''constructive dismissal'' after the employer issued a written warning because he kept taking the phone out of his team leader's room and using it for extended private calls.

    Probably the best of all, a man sued for ''constructive dismissal'' after he was cautioned for lying about his boss in a report to Child Services. This man was asked to collect his sick child from childcare urgently, but chose to stay and gossip to a workmate for an hour before leaving. He then told Child Services the boss had put his child's life in danger by not passing on the Child Care Centre's message!

    These law suits cost countless thousands to defend, destroy workplace morale, and consume an inestimable amount of time and energy of senior staff, even if the employer wins hands down. The worker doesn't have to compensate the employer no matter what the finding.

    Trebor, some employers are unconscionable. I've worked for some who should be jailed for their abuse. But equally, a lot of employees are disgusting and seem to think they have a right to sit yacking to friends on phones, munching snacks, and doing NOTHING to earn their pay, and then sue for ''unfair dismissal'' if they are correctly cautioned according to law and then fairly dismissed.

    It cuts both ways.

    As for unions, some are great - but I've had horrid experiences with corrupt unions. Forced a strike that cost me two weeks' wages and only benefited the higher-paid employees, then refused to support a complaint about illegal work practices that were putting lives in danger because the union rep ''was on a good wicket and didn't want to rock the boat''. Took fees on December 24 and then declared the membership had expired on January 1.

    I know of a business that was closed down by the unions. When it re-opened, the same workers who had joined the union - in response to union pressure - happily went back to work in a ''no union'' workplace and showed every union rep the door quickly when any tried to enter, saying the worst thing that ever happened to them was the union invading. They were well treated and very happy when the union wasn't getting in the way.

    Unions are a good thing if their power is very strictly limited and they are forced to operate honestly and conscionably. Sadly, many are run by corrupt leaders and they have done some hideous harm both to the economy and to workers they are supposed to be representing.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:27pm
    Unions and managers are a great thing as long as their powers are curtailed, and they are forced to operate openly and honestly.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:09pm
    Some interesting reading. Apparently what is lost is that we are a civilised society and tearing the heart out of citizens who are not coping seems to be collateral damage. What has happened to the Australia I grew up in where everyone had a fair go at life? Now it is all about the rich owning everything and paying a very low percentage of tax if indeed any at all.
    More appropriate is to leave company taxes at the low rate they are at and put up barriers to negate the attacks from overseas orchestrated by other wealthy citizens trying to create a worldwide web of zero taxed citizens. The rich. The poor will then be expected to make up the shortfall. Sick when you think of it. I say SHAME to those of you on this website who subscribe to this line of reasoning. IT IS UNAUSTRALIAN.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:10pm
    TREBOR: So are businesses and their government puppets as long as the same rules apply to them. They don't and never will. You should know that by now.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    8:16am
    MICK the logical conclusion of a small number of very wealthy receiving all the productivity gains and the bottom 50% giving up income increases to accomodate this wealth inequality has always been a Depression or War.

    The data and graphs don't lie. We have had our income growth cut since around the mid 70s in real terms but some of us have managed to save through careful choices of spending and because we were lucky to buy or build houses early before the huge growth in asset values.

    Those with no assets suffer the most from excessive debt levels and very low interest rates for too long.

    If interest rates correct the game is over. There is absolutely no safety in money in the banks or in bank shares. Possibly the most dangerous place to have investments since that Bail In Legislation we aren't talking about was passed in February.

    No crying about it if the banks fail as blind Freddy can see the risks developing with 3 trillion dollars of debt and stagnant or falling incomes.
    Priscilla
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:18am
    What a lot of rubbish. Company tax will only benefit big business and it will do nothing to promote jobs. The banks are cutting 2000 jobs - what does that tell you? Where will the government get their revenue if company tax is cut? Certainly not from big business. They will again make ordinary workers pay more taxes and increase the price of services whilst cutting services received. Wake up!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:56am
    Banks are cutting jobs and selling their finance businesses because it is no longer profitable for them to keep them.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:51pm
    OG what happened did some of the dead people complain about the service charges?
    Joy Anne
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:09pm
    Totally agree. This is your Liberal Govt. Selling off our Australia to Paying huge amounts in foreign aid to countries who will kill us. And the UN this is a lot of BS. We need to cut off the UN altogether.
    Stop selling what is left to overseas and stop all foreign aid until our country is sorted. Homelessness, Pensions.
    Company tax cuts for big business will not help anyone but the company. No employment. After hearing all the things the royal commission have been doing that Liberals did not want and now Turnbull apologises he got it wrong. Too late too little.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:09pm
    Wrong again, OG - banks are FRANCHISING out their financial advisory business in the hope that somehow that means they wil 'scape the lash - I say ensure that like any other franchisor they retain a portion of direct responsibility for the wrongful behaviour of franchisees, just like 7/11 and such.

    I love it when the filthy wool coat pulled over the public eyes for so long begins to unravel, and more and more thieves are caught up in it and dragged down.

    Only the viable and honest businesses will survive, OG - just not the thieves.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:40pm
    Dead people have their accounts frozen if their executor does their job. So if the bank billed dead people the executor didn't do their job. Banks don't check to see if everyone is alive every day.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:42pm
    Trebor CBA is splitting off MLC in a public float not franchising it.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:57pm
    .. while still holding the majority shares.. thanks for coming.. that's exactly the kind of business chicanery that is sending this nation to the wall.....
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:24pm
    OG, are you watching the day to day evidence?
    The banks have knowingly been charging dead people!
    Also, the not for profit super funds have been suffering lies from the other super funds to try to discredit them.
    Things like this are coming out and mid level not top level heads are rolling!
    At least be fair in your comments. You show bias and prejudice in favour of the banks. If there is wrong doing then there is. If they are squeaky clean then this would clear them.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:48pm
    Banks can't be held responsible if the dead's persons executor failed to notify them that they were dead. If they had been notified then the dead person's accounts would have been frozen. That is very bad reporting by the media who haven't done their homework.

    Nothing stopping me telling the Royal commission that I instructed a bank to invest my money in safe investments but they invested it in high return investments instead. Over the years my investment was doing very well and I was very happy. However something went wrong and I lost a fair chunk of it. Gee I think to myself this can't be my fault. I know if I blame the bank I wont feel so bad. Royal Commission comes along so I then put in a submission on how the bank did the wrong thing and fleeced me of my money. Truth is that I knew exactly where my money was invested but I saw the opportunity to get some of it back. That is what is really going on with this Royal Commission.
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:15pm
    OG
    They have admitted doing it!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:28pm
    Of course they have. They have no other choice as these people have submitted their evidence under oath. If the bank didn't own up then they would be accused of lying. Whole thing is just so wrong and will do the country and the economy lots of harm.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:20pm
    What convoluted (lack of) thinking - the banks own up because if they didn't they'd be fairly called liars because of evidence given on oath, but they are still not responsible....

    what part of, "Yeah - we did that thing!", do you NOT understand, OG?
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:12pm
    Yes Priscilla. That is the game.
    The problem is the sheep may vote for slavery. I read it from a number of my wooley friends on this website on a daily basis. Frightening.
    Cranky
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:30am
    Company Tax cuts only assists big business to put more money in their pockets. It won't create jobs as companies keep everything for themselves Max Jackwitz
    HarrysOpinion
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:04pm
    Giving the large corporates a tax cut will not achieve extra jobs. Will not achieve extra income for low rank employees, nor middle management, nor those on fixed employment contracts. They will not invest in new equipment. There is no confidence in the prosperity of the Australian economy in the short term.
    Large public corporate companies are beholden to shareholders. They are all about increased productivity for less outlay. Company tax cuts achieves nothing more than a bit of an extra return to shareholders at the expense of the public purse.
    A recent survey of companies revealed that only 8% of corporates willing to spend on capitol expenditure and some wage increases to employees. 92% will not.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:24pm
    Result of tax cuts = bigger pay packets for CEOs and other top employees + bigger dividends for shareholders.

    Workers? Their status will the UNCHANGED apart from higher taxes to fund wealth transfer from poor to rich. It's Class Warfare. Nothing else. Tell the troops BS and they'll believe it! Many do.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    12:53pm
    Mick, I watched a fascinating expose on the result of corporate tax cuts in the UK. They made the UK a tax haven, but 80% of the population gained NOTHING. Wages did NOT increase. Unemployment DID NOT REDUCE. There were no tax cuts for the general population. Productivity and the GDP actually FELL marginally. But journalists interviewed CEOs and company directors who boasted that they had used the tax bonus to fly to Europe and buy $100,000 watches and $1 million cars. They were completely unapologetic, laughing and saying they couldn't believe anyone would be stupid enough to think they would hire more people or pay higher wages, or even invest more. They said ''we pay as little as we can get away with. We hire as many as we need and not one more. And we invest only when investment offers strong promise of higher profits. The market didn't justify more investment. We couldn't sell any more because WE enjoyed tax cuts. You'd actually need to improve the net income of consumers to drive investment or more jobs. Nobody in government wants to do that!''

    Interestingly, Many Australian CEOs were also quick to admit that they had no intention of increasing wages or hiring more people, and only a handful indicated intention to invest if taxes were cut. And we've seen the result of record profit growth! It has NOT flowed to any improvement for the average Australian.

    In the US, I saw the devastation that resulted from corporate tax cuts. The growing poverty there is horrendous. We see statistics that look good, but what we aren't told is that those statistics reflect the improvement in the position of the upper class and very high middle class. The average and lower middle class are now at the level the middle working class used to be, and the working class are virtually slaves - or trying to survive on food stamps and begging in the streets. What was really disturbing was seeing the farms that have gone to rack and ruin because the farmers can't afford to maintain them anymore. They are just walking away to beg on street corners or slave in restaurants hoping for decent tips.

    23rd Apr 2018
    11:38am
    So we can't afford fair taxation for self-funded retirees, but we can triple the pension? Pensioners must be the new elite, it seems? Stuff anyone who worked and saved and is contributing tens of thousands to the budget annually by NOT drawing a pension. Take their savings off them, but triple the handouts to those living off the taxpayer.

    Fair go! I used champion the pensioners' cause, but after the disgusting selfishness and abuse I've seen on seniors' forums lately, they can go to hell.

    But NO, company tax should NOT be cut. And yes, bank shareholders SHOULD be compensated for their losses.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:54pm
    If they increased the pension they would have to support self funded retirees. So I would expect both groups would win. How that would be done would be the question.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:07pm
    But Shorten says we can't afford a few thousand dollars in tax refunds to self-funded retirees who were overtaxed, and whose self-sufficiency is saving the nation millions. So how the hell are we going to afford pension increases? That makes no sense at all. Thing is though, the greedy ''entitled'' pensioners don't care. They think money grows on trees and it's ''unfair'' that their tree doesn't bear as much as their neighbour's.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:10pm
    Never fear OGR- when such a thing comes in, you'll get your top-up.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:49pm
    No, Trebor. Nobody CAN get more while we have a debt and deficit problem and screams for tax cuts. The ONLY way to give anybody more is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. And that means rewarding people for working and saving and NOT making the pension so attractive that everybody wants to be a pensioner in retirement. I'm not saying the pension should be reduced, but is self-funded retirees aren't ALWAYS substantially better off than pensioners, we will have too much load on the pension system, and eventually it will collapse under the weight. That ought to be common sense, but greed and selfishness kills brain cells.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:59pm
    If we have a debt and deficit problem that is crying for more taxes not less... austerity for all, you see.

    If this 'debt' includes the 'debts' held by offshore companies that do not even pay tax here - it is not part of OUR problem.

    Nobody said SFRs were substantially better off - some are, some are not, and the issues are too big for this simple discussion - this discussion is about the pension....
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:30pm
    Actually, Trebor, 95% of pensioners DO say SFRs are better off and demand they be persecuted and robbed.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:29pm
    Obviously they are wrong about the numbers.... some I'm certain are better off, but many seem to be taking it on the chin.
    Triss
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:54pm
    That’s why a universal pension is a must, Genuine. A basic pension for everyone and folk who have saved through their working life would have a bit of extra money for luxuries.
    Sundays
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:52pm
    OGR, I don’t demand that SFRs be perscured and robbed. I think Labor’s proposal on Franking Credits is bad policy. I admire you keeping the pressure up, but get some perspective. they aren’t even in power. What I do object to is your continued assertions that most people who receive a full or part pension were spendthrifts and bludgers! Most people worked hard but without good super schemes it was all they could do to pay off their home. I know, you went without Yadda, yadda. Your choice, and it’s made you bitter. I took my children on holidays, educated them, they had extra curricular activities, we had a comfortable home, nice clothes, went out and enjoyed ourselves. We paid for the lot! In retirement, we get a small part pension. It is the right of every Australian. When you continually stray off topic and insult us all, trust me no one cares!
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:30pm
    Well, thank you Sunday, and yes, you are very fair and courteous. Unfortunately, you are NOT typical of pensioners. Sorry if I offend. I don't really think pensioners are spendthrifts or bludgers. I've actually championed their cause extensively. But I'm angry and hurt by their appalling selfishness and nastiness in recent discussions - mostly about franking credit policies. They should be supporting demands for fairness for everyone, but instead they are ranting about somebody being rich and it being ''too funny'' that some people will suffer unfairness and have their lifestyle demolished.

    Yes, my lifestyle was my choice. But it seems others are entitled to make their choice, but those who made the choice I made are not entitled to enjoy a decent lifestyle for having done so. That's what makes me angry.

    Pensioners owe SFRs support in their demands for fairness. SFRs are contributing significantly to the nation's budget, and that's helping make pensions affordable. The least pensioners can do is show some appreciation and respect and support demands that SFRs also be dealt with fairly and allowed to enjoy the lifestyle they worked so hard to attain.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:27pm
    The issue is the assets test. That knocks out many and this lot were fair dinkum they'd make the assets test sensible and cut out all the schemes of arrangement whereby the rich can get around paying tax, including wealthy retired folk you have paid professions to nobble the system.
    The real culprit is wealthy people controlling the game and the system they have set up........FOR THEMSELVES.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    8:36am
    If they triple the pension and do nothing for Superannuation there won't be any savings other than the compulsory 9.5% and that will have to be legislated as an annuity or everyone will spend it all to get the pension.

    This is dreaming. We'll be lucky to be able to afford public welfare at all the way the economy is looking and the fact that most of any profits are being taken overseas as we no longer own much of anything.

    Our balance of payments account is appalling.

    The asset and income tests were a waste of time and only hurt the innocent savers. It helped the budget by a few billion though. The Government is desperate for money and hates the idea that all those sales of everything didn't pan out so well. They had hoped to be gone before the collapse leaving the other Party to face the storm.

    The really rich do not invest in Superannuation or pay tax. They don't earn income like we do. It's all cashflow and capital gains and the corporation paying for everything.

    All this nastiness of asset and income test changes hurt the average nurse or police officer, small business owner or average worker forced or convinced to save for their own retirement.

    You cannot trust a banker or a politician. We know that already yet still listen to them. Stupid is as stupid does.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    8:58am
    The issue is that the power-brokers are both too stupid and too self-serving to even consider innovative solutions that would genuinely address the problems. In what universe is it intelligent to just say ''oh, that happened decades ago - let's reverse it''? Both LNP and Labor are demonstrating gross incompetence. No consideration for changes in environment or economic conditions. No consideration for why that happened decades ago and what benefit it yielded. Just reverse it, because dim-witted morons can't THINK.

    Yes, the assets test is stupid and destructive and should never have been introduced. But we unfortunately can't find anyone, among these wonderful ''I'm worth millions'' egomaniacal politicians and advisers who has enough brains to come up with anything better.
    Snowflake
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:38am
    Get real. The banks have been ripping people off for a long, long time. If you asked a friend to lend you $100 and they said yes, but you will have to pay me back $118, how long would that friendship last. ie. Credit cards!!!!! Loan fees. Bollocks. We pay banks so we can pay back a huge amount of money in interest and then they charge us for the privelege?? And remember the low rates have only been here for a fairly short period.
    Try and get a mortagage and it's one bullshit cost after another. I haven't had one for over thirty years but I see the rip offs and injustice from younger friends and family.
    The Royal Commission is showing the flaws and illegal processes the banks use to rip people off. And the Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to hold an enquiry. Surely, that tells you something. As for risk, most of these people went for advice as to where to invest their money, not borrow it. That scenario is yet to play out.
    OG you are a sad, sad man.
    While I'm at it, insurance companies are almost as bad. Why do you pay a large amount of money to insure your possessions and if something happens half the claim is taken up by the excess you have to pay. Another made up fee that is bullshit.
    Company tax, another smoke and mirrors stunt. It will not benefit anyone except corporate wages and shareholders. The working man will not see the flow on and that has been proved all over the world.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:04pm
    Not too sure what planet you are living on Snowflake but banks and insurance companies have been my best friend. Had many loans with no fees, enjoy no fee banking and can still get a mortgage at my age. Credits cards are the best thing since sliced bread and I really enjoy my free flight once a year simply by using them. As I have shares in the bank I don't pay any credit card fees and get free travel insurance.

    No I wouldn't ask of even lend my best human friend money. Too much of a hassle getting it back even with zero interest.

    Far too many people have taken too much risk and lost and now want to blame the banks for their own greed.

    Company tax belongs to the shareholders and under our current system many shareholders benefit enormously from the franking credits (tax) paid on their behalf.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:57pm
    OG you can't be serious.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:57pm
    I acknowledge instances of misconduct by banks, but one of the whingers complained that she had been ''misled'' to sell her house and start a self-managed super fund with promises of a $2 million loan to buy a bed and breakfast. This was someone who had a $500,000 home with a huge mortgage on it, and knew NOTHING about business. Honestly, how stupid can you be to think you could borrow $2 million? And why wouldn't you consult an independent lawyer and accountant before starting an SMSF, rather than taking advice from someone who was going to benefit from selling you a whopping big loan?

    I do think banks should be banned from giving financial advice or even doing deals with advisers. But you will NEVER stop people acting on bad financial advice, and sadly we'll never stop unconscionable people charging for bad advice. Happily, the bank employee who gave me bad advice - which thankfully I rejected - was dealt with very efficiently by our friend Karma. Yes, made millions by lying and cheating, but ended up a paraplegic at age 35. Sad, but if he'd been honest and decent maybe fate would have spared him.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:01pm
    Company tax is not dividend franking, OG...

    Do you now advocate that shareholders pay a share of company tax... that's what it sounds like...?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:31pm
    Yes Tib I am serious and have nothing but admiration for the banks.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:29pm
    Go then and place all your cash with them... in absolute trust.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:36pm
    Own a heaps of their shares too.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:22pm
    Then you'll be paying for their wrongdoings with a lower return, as is only meet.
    Sundays
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:57pm
    No person of conscience listening to what is coming out from the Royal Commission could ever trust banks again. I hope the outcome sees hefty fines, and gaol time. OG and OGR, you two are totally out of touch!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:34pm
    It will all be forgotten quickly and it will be business as usual. Time to buy some shares in banks and AMP. Wish I had some spare cash.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:38pm
    Not out of control, Sundays. Just being objective and acknowledging that some of the so-called ''victims'' really don't have grounds to blame the banks. On the other hand, I have never trusted banks, and I've been shafted by them myself. I think they are unconscionable, and something has to be done about them. But sadly its innocent Australians paying the price. Then again, the envy brigade are delighted to see anyone they THINK might have more than them hurting.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    25th Apr 2018
    8:13am
    Yesterday they had a case where a women said she would have list a lost of money if she had taken the advice given. Why was this even before the RC? I am beginning to see this as nothing better than a switch hunt covered by a media that has not done their homework.
    Misty
    26th Apr 2018
    3:46pm
    Maybe she paid for that advice VCB, what is the point of paying for financial advice if you don't use it?, not everyone has the time or knowledge to do their own financial planning that is what people pay Financial Advisors for but it seems that this lady was unfortunate enough to be given bad advice.
    Chris B T
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:42am
    How many Companies Pay the top RATED TAX now.
    There are a lot who don't pay taxes or minuscule amounts.
    My take on it is only chest beating and farting from their mouths.
    It will achieve nothing If you are paying below that amount now.
    [;-(0)
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:01pm
    NONE!

    Only the little guys pay their taxes.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:43pm
    Yes, and now YOU are insisting the little guy who is saving the government tens of thousand a year in retirement should pay 30% tax for the companies, but ONLY if they are poor and NOT pensioners.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:44pm
    Yes, and now YOU are insisting the little guy who is saving the government tens of thousand a year in retirement should pay 30% tax for the companies, but ONLY if they are poor and NOT pensioners.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:30pm
    You have highlighted the growing game. First a few set up crooked offshore tax shelters. Now more and more are piling in. Even the PM has one. And strangely NOBODY is calling to make these fraudulent tax avoiding scams illegal. Why? Of course....because the rich own them and they benefit them.
    Fix the system and you can leave tax rates as they are. This lot won't which is why we need to kick them out with a landslide vote.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    8:41am
    Cancel all taxes, levies, rates etc and have a very small transaction tax globally. The UN have done the research and it is viable.

    Everyone pays 0.05% on every money transfer. The rich then would have to pay their fair share as we would all pay the same.

    Redistribution could then be sorted out to protect the less able.
    Chris B T
    24th Apr 2018
    10:54am
    My posted comment was about Company Tax as This Post is about, please when responding refer to whom your responding to as most of these responses are unrelated to my comment.
    Personal tax would be another issue which has moral and ethical element which politicians seem to lack at the same time everyone else has be perfect in.
    [:(
    Snowflake
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:45am
    Yes, self funded retirees do get a bad break. My friend is one. He has recently finished building his $2.000.000 house. Then he went to Europe for 10 weeks with his wife and came back and bought two new cars and he still complains he doesn't get a health care card. In fairness he worked hard and did a little bit of property investing and has done very well and good on him but when he tells me he earns about $80.000 a year just from super and investments somehow I just can't feel sorry for him.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:58am
    And you are dumb enough to think EVERY self-funded retiree is in his category, Snowflake. No wonder the world is so messed up, when elitist judgmental nasties make these idiotic assumptions.

    MOST self-funded retirees live very frugally in order to save the taxpayer expense. Many have incomes of as little as $20,000 a year, or $34,000 for a couple - LESS than the aged pension.

    But you keep on with you selfish assumptions and bullying, and then wonder why taxpayers will strenuously oppose increases to pensions for mean nasty folk who live on handouts and have no appreciation or respect for others.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:05pm
    Snowflake you really have no idea at all.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:05pm
    A lot of folks make money with property, as long as you live in your expensive house there are no taxes when you sell at a much higher price. Shorten now makes that even worse by punishing the people with company shares. SMSF owners now will get rid of the shares and push property prices even higher. Well done Bill!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:43pm
    I agree money will flow out of shares into property or worse still overseas as without franking credits overseas shares look attractive.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:00pm
    I'm self funded and no I don't have a 2 million dollar house. Your comment is just ridiculous.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:04pm
    This selfishness is wrecking the country. It's time to take pensions away from those who carry on this way until they learn some gratitude and respect.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:13pm
    Steady on the OGs - Snowflake never said any of that - now settle down.

    Money flowed into shares when the tax rate was higher... and cutting down on property rorts will change the focus back to meaningful investment.

    All the property investors will get is over-stretched and even more vulnerable since there will be no solid underpinning to the economy, with investment in productive areas.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:34pm
    Some self funded retirees are asset rich but income poor. Sell the assets and live off the capital? A possibility but then those folk draw a pension and everybody else needs to pay more tax. Not as easy as it seems.
    I agree that anybody who earns around $80,000 pa in retirement may be in a different basket though. As for a health care card please note some countries cover their citizens for health care unlike AUstralia where politicians lie to us all and you cannot get immediate treatment for serious conditions. In countries like GB, Italy, Germany, Canada you can.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    7:21pm
    Live of the capital ignores the fact that many retirees worked and saved specifically for designated purposes, and it's patently unfair to deny them the right to use their savings for what they saved for while those who chose to spend are paid a pension. Why should the person who opted for expensive holidays and restaurant dinners get a pension while the person who saved for a special holiday at age 75, or to have household help and a mowing service from age 75 onward has to live off their capital and forfeit the benefit they saved for? What if someone saved to leave assets to their children or grandchildren? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that, when those who chose to spend on themselves instead get a pension.

    The system is patently unfair, and by being unfair, it discourages saving and therefore increases the burden on the taxpayer. Tightening the assets test only increases the cost of pensions by making saving futile.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    25th Apr 2018
    8:21am
    OGR system is very unfair. How is it possible that I now have more income on the full OAP plus my investment income than someone with $2.5 million invested? My wealth is being stored in my house and in the houses of my grandkids. All it takes is a bit of planning and knowledge of how it all works.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    4:02pm
    Yes, VCB, it IS very unfair. And the unfairness is making it expensive and inefficient. The problem with planning is that you need the knowledge five years before reaching pension age. Unfortunately, I was too honest and ethical and didn't think about manipulating until very recently. I guess I had too much confidence in the integrity of our leaders - who, on both sides, have proved themselves to be inept, dishonest, and totally unconcerned with the national good.
    Dave R
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:53am
    The government should leave company tax where it is and start making them all actually pay some tax. Most pay either no tax or much less than the 30% they should be.
    As to the banks, it is their greedy shareholders who turned a blind eye to their rip-off practices and who should be feeling ashamed of themselves. Of course they will not as they will claim they didn't know, but at least they will take a hit by falling share prices and lower future dividends.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:55am
    What a disgustingly selfish post, Dave R. You should be ashamed of yourself. How are minor shareholders to know about, much less control, the conduct of a huge corporation. And to wish loss on people - many of whom are struggling to sustain a livelihood WITHOUT imposing on the taxpayer purse - is just VILE. No doubt you are happy to bludge on handouts from the taxpaying children of those you are wanting to suffer hurt? You sound like the disgraceful elitist pensioners who think they are the only people alive and are entitled to everything, while the rest of society should starve.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:09pm
    Dave R you are an awesome example of what is wrong with this country. You can't see past your own welfare mentality.
    Dave R
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:17pm
    I will take that as a compliment since it comes from extreme right wing Liberal Party trolls, not genuine people.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:39pm
    No, Dave R. I'm NOT even an LNP voter. I HATE the LNP and oppose their policies strenuously. But you ARE an awesome example of what's wrong with this country. And if you are OG's comment as a compliment, then you really are the PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY. And God help us all if there are others with that welfare mentality. You are destroying the nation.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:14pm
    Simple enough then - cancel franking and get everyone to pay their own taxes in full.

    No more arguments.... you pay on what you get without all this quibbling.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:22pm
    If you cancel franking, everybody who invests in Australian shares is double-taxed. There is NOTHING wrong with the existing system. It is fair and equitable, compliant with tax law overall, consistent with all other taxation methods, and FAIR TO ALL. Leave it alone. It's right. It's good for the nation.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:36pm
    No - they're not, Rainey. The company pays its tax and the shareholder pays tax on gross income.... no change at all.

    Without franked credits, all that is required of the shareholder is to declare total income plus deductions for a tax return to be complete, and without all the arguing that somehow regardless of gross income - the shareholders should all receive that 30% back every time - meaning that if Bill FAtz gets $1m back in franking credits - he should not be paying any tax on that income, and the company has already not paid tax on it, but instead lodged it with the ATO for safekeeping until tax time when it should be added to gross income.

    I've done the figures on income tax for you, and shown you that you, with your figures given, would not pay one cent more - but the way you and others continue to read this - you are happy for Bill Fatz to continue to pay no tax on income.

    Companies do not pay tax on franked dividends, and that franked credit lodge with the ATO is for safekeeping - not tax paid. - and is still required to be accounted for at year's end as income.

    You can't get both dividend and franked dividend on the same shares without paying some tax.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:07pm
    Trebor go back tot he drawing board and find out how franking credits work as you obviously don't know.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:13pm
    OG is right, Trebor. You've got it totally wrong. You clearly don't understand the system at all. It's perfectly fair, correct and workable as it is. The company pays tax based on the assumption that ALL shareholders are liable to pay 30% tax. If the shareholder is not liable for tax, they get it back - as they should. If they ARE liable to tax, the ATO retains the 30%. as they should, and if the shareholder's marginal tax rate is MORE than 30%, the ATO bills them for more, as it should. The ONLY problem is that IDIOT Shorten insists people who shouldn't have to pay tax must be taxed unfairly at 30% if they wish to invest in Australian shares - UNLESS they are pensioners. Tell Shorten to shove his stupidity where the sun doesn't shine and all will continue to be fine. If he wants more revenue, tell the IDIOT to attack people who can afford to pay - not struggling SFRs who are doing the nation a good turn by being self-funded. Tell the dope that $10,000 tax refund is a lot cheaper for Treasury than $34,000 in pension. Short-on clearly can't do the simplest and most basic math! Then, of course, he IS raiding the super funds of ordinary Australians AND pensioners, and lying about it.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:25pm
    Well - OG - if it doesn't work that way - Shorten is correct to alter it, since it is tax paid in on behalf of the shareholder and is thus a part of shareholder income, same as PAYE.

    OGR - correct - if you don't owe tax, then you get some or all back... based on your total income.

    Where am I wrong?

    If the idea is that the 30% should automatically come home to the shareholder without being included in taxable income - Shorten is 100% correct and that is outright theft.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:26pm
    If you do end up being taxed the entire 30% - you are getting a motza in dividends and must pay tax somehow. It's not a free ride, you know.
    Sundays
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:07pm
    If you’re a struggling SFR due to the changes in the Assets test, you have my upmost sympathy. You worked under the old rules and had the rug pulled out from under you. Likewise all those on Defined Benefits Schemes who were subject to unfair changes. It was annanounced and changed in the budget without warning. OGR you have at least 12 months potential notice. Plenty of time to change your investments. Stop being so rude, you’re lucky!
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:52pm
    Sundays, the reason this nation is stuffed is because people just accept bad policy and figure out ways to avoid being too badly hurt by it. My concern isn't for me. It's for the nation. Shorten is reinforcing a clear message already sent by the LNP changing the assets test: that it doesn't pay to save for retirement. That is going to stuff the country and ultimately pensioners will suffer.

    What I want to see is EVERYONE UNITING to demand better of our government and the Opposition. It's not a matter of rearranging personal affairs. It's a matter of everyone joining to stand up to the powers that be.

    And it's Trebor being rude. I've made it clear already that his wild ASSUMPTION that I must be getting a motza in dividends is WRONG.

    Pensioners need to STOP making assumptions and pay attention to the FACTS. Shorten is crippling SFRs with an unfair tax on LOW INCOMES. He is NOT taking ANYTHING from the WEALTHY.

    It's time for pensioners to stop being blinded by envy and hatred for the SFRs and unite to demand policies that are good for the country.

    BTW. I already have a plan to protect my lifestyle. I'm going on the pension. I'll become one of the favoured elite, and I WILL be ripping off the nation because I could be self-funded - but only if taxed fairly. Shorten is going to drive the debt through the roof by driving hundreds of thousands to make the same choice.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:39pm
    Dave: I am one of those "greedy" bank shareholders. Made my voice heard though. Written to the media but they do not publish (surprise surprise). Written to the company I own shares in but get public relations BS back.
    Please do not tar me with the same brush mate. We earn little more than the pension and get nil from the government of the day and I find it offensive that governments have no appreciation for the fact that self funded retirees ARE NOT A BURDEN to society. Corporates are. Tax cuts need to come to where they can help rather than creating obscene lifestyles for the very very few.

    23rd Apr 2018
    11:57am
    To compare the times of the 50s with today is really impossible. We had a fixed exchange rate for all currencies, we had lots of tariffs and you needed permission to send money overseas. I had to see the reserve bank once a month filling in forms to repay a loan I stupidly took out from abroad. If we have company taxes at 30%, Europe 19%, Singapore at 15% and Ireland as low as 12% how can we be competitive? We lost the car industry and I bought the last Australia-made Color TV in 1983. Worked all the way to 2010. The future lies in lower taxation and less freebies for non-productive people. Not nice but true.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:08pm
    Agree if our company tax was 15% we would get twice if not more revenue from out companies.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:20pm
    Cowboy Jim, it's our wages that make us uncompetitive - not taxes. Our tax rate is NOT actually 30%. That's a nominal rate, by if you compare our tax system with other countries, our actual company tax rate is much lower than nearly every other developed nation. They have all kinds of extra loadings and levies that they don't count in their tax rate but that we include in ours.

    We can't afford lower tax. There isn't enough tax paid now - as evidenced by the budget deficit. Somebody has to pay the ferryman. Either we scrap services and let poor people suffer sickness and lack of education and poverty for sick and disabled and old people, or we tax people who can afford to pay. The problem is that they are NOT paying. They are avoiding and evading at every turn.

    Our wages DO make us uncompetitive, but how do we deal with that? A businessman once told me we should cut wages to 1/3rd so he could compete better. Then wage-earners would be living in cardboard boxes and starving, as happens in third world countries. Is that really a solution?

    I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly is NOT cutting taxes. Personally, I think it's raising taxes at the top end and increasing the net incomes of the poorest so that we generate more spending to drive growth. But one thing we MUST do is to STOP this needs-based welfare and entitlement syndrome and start making sure people who contribute to the economy, but are NOT well-off, enjoy their fair rewards.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:16pm
    OGR, OGR, OGR - wages are struggling to keep up with the costs of living - the costs of living are what makes things difficult and the nation 'non-competitive'.

    Freeze cost of living rises in REAL terms, cancel all privatisation that has sky-rocketed costs for basic, and then we can begin to discuss wages.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:28pm
    Great line for a laugh there, OG....

    Please explain exactly how 'we' will get far greater revenue out of companies by charging them 15% tax instead of 30%.

    I know - I know - you'll mumble that they won't spend all that money on high-priced fleecers doing their tax, and that it will cost less to just pay - in which case you are dreaming.

    Businesses feel they should pay zero tax, and that's all there is to it.

    They need a minimum tax - maybe on turnover as was suggested, and I know you'll scream about that idea.... if they are paying a dividend year after year but no tax - they are earning and must pay, so it's time for some deeming rules to come into play.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:37pm
    Trebor, I was NOT proposing cutting wages. I'm simply saying it's paying close to decent wages that is making us uncompetitive - NOT our tax rate. The last thing I want to see is wages reduced.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:37pm
    If wages were cut, all the markets would falter anyway.... it's a symbiotic arrangement and all markets need feeding.

    Freeze costs and then we'll talk wages.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:42pm
    Jim: you have highlighted the problem, better known as a race to the bottom...orchestrated by wealthy interests worldwide. Being the lowest taxing nation is only a guarantee of slavery for every other nation.

    OG: shame on you mate. No tax might be in YOUR interests but they not in the interests of working Australians or our country. Only the rich win in this game. So who are you??????
    FrankC
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:14pm
    If they're going to save money, use it to set up customer service in Australia, giving jobs to Australians, and not to overseas call centres where some of them cannot even speak English clear enough to be understood. One of the reasons I chose Red Energy, their customer service is in Melbourne.
    Rae
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:03pm
    Yes Frank and they answer the phone promptly and you can understand them and they can discuss issues readily.

    23rd Apr 2018
    12:15pm
    Again, we are given half the story. The low unemployment in the 50's was due to a lot more than the company tax rate. Australia was still recovering from WWII as well as the Korean Conflict, infrastructure such as the Snowy River Scheme was in full swing and married women were not allowed to work in the Public Service. It would be good to know what the tax rates of other competing nation were as a comparison because one of the main reasons for the projected tax cuts is to compete with other nations which have a much lower tax rate. If we are to compete with other nations, we have to play on an equal playing field.

    Banks have done the wrong thing and nothing can be said to justify their misconduct but I fail to see how it will be possible to quarantine the banks from a company tax cut. AMP has admitted to doing the wrong thing so it follows that they too should be included in the quarantining. In both cases, a lower profit will only affect shareholders, not the institutions themselves. What if the Royal Commission finds that some superannuation funds have been guilty of misconduct? Do we also ask that they be quarantined from tax relief? Again, the members of those funds will be penalised, not the fund itself.

    How far do we take this idea that tax cuts will only apply to some and not others? If a person has a criminal record, can we stop them from getting a tax cut? What about child molesters and drug dealers, can they also miss out. Of course, not. The punishment for those who break the law is dealt with by the courts, not the ATO.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:18pm
    OK then - we'll make the company tax rate 25% on net income - and that is precisely what you pay without any chicanery.. and that after chopping some of the nice little earners like endless R & D year after year that drives the company into negative profit but still enables it to pay shares..... funny that.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:46pm
    OM: you have provided insight but sounds a bit like gilding the lily to me. A race to the bottom will do one thing only, lock in poverty for the majority of citizens. Talking about competing with manipulation on a planetary scale is the wrong way to look at this. What we need is to make this an equitable game not one where the casino always wins. I am not in favour of returning to millenia gone by where the serfs where dust beneath the feet of the overlords. Your model will create exactly that.

    23rd Apr 2018
    12:30pm
    Typical ignorant scaremongering lefty article
    Company tax should be halved
    And the evonomic benefits will flow
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:46pm
    Sad how untrue that is, Raphael. Company profits are at an all-time high and skyrocketing, yet there are NO BENEFITS FLOWING AT ALL. The only people benefiting are CEOs and Directors claiming mega-millions in salaries, while cutting wages and staff numbers.
    Rae
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:11pm
    Yes straight out of the country whoosh!!!

    A money transfer tax would catch everyone depending on how much they receive or spend. It would at least be honest and equitable.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:26pm
    Even the government, in lobbying for the tax cuts, admitted their modelling shows it will yield less than .05% benefit and it will take years to achieve that small benefit. Why on earth would anyone support a tax cut that the proposers themselves claim will yield virtually NO benefit?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:39pm
    stop believing the bullshit spewed by the left

    Tax reform should focus on reducing the corporate tax rate. A high statutory corporate tax rate encourages profit shifting and discourages investment.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:42pm
    It's not spewed by the left, Raphael. It's the RIGHT saying it won't deliver benefit to the economy. And it's been proved conclusively in other countries. The UK cut corporate tax and it resulted in the richest 10% getting 20% richer and NO BENEFIT AT ALL for the other 90%. The rich even boasted that they flew to Europe to buy $100,000 watches and $1 million luxury cars with their savings.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:51pm
    Boolock Raphael. Your normal BS.
    There is only so much money to be made and robotics is set to decimate workers needed for production. So jobs will not be there!
    Your idea is give everything to the wealthy. That does not create any prosperity for either remaining workers or nations. It does one thing and one thing only: concentrates all wealth in the hands of the very few.

    Think I am dreaming. Go to America, the land of the free (not). Poverty everywhere whilst the top 1% roll in dough. That is what your idea will create here and that is why countries like Norway and Sweden will not have a bar of it.
    My suggestion is you move to AMerica and live in your utopia of ignorance mate. Then come back, eat some humble pie and become a real aussie. Cheers.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    7:30pm
    Mick, Raphael would probably love America because he'd be among the rich and privileged, and the rich and privileged couldn't care less about the poor and destitute. They just brand them ''lazy'' and 'stupid'' and claim they deserve their fate. See, according to the ''born with a silver spoon'' brigade, being born poor is a crime that should be punished with a lifetime of hardship.
    floss
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:30pm
    A GREAT BIG NO to cut company tax it will only aid overseas companies

    who are ripping off the country as it is . What planet are you on O.G . YOU HAVE REALLY

























    A BIG NO to these overseas companies as to a tax cut they do not pay tax anyway. Sorry O.G.you have really lost the plot on this one.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:35pm
    You can't have it both ways floss. If overseas companies pay no tax then reducing the tax rates for those companies will only mean that they will pay no tax but at a much lower rate.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:38pm
    So it's Ok that companies don't pay tax here and pay it where they can pay a lot less? Sounds a bit silly to me when all we have to do is half our company tax rate and get it paid here instead. Then again that is what one expects form those who think bigger is better and that bigger cuts others down a bit towards their own small size.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:45pm
    Can't agree there, OG. We already have one of the world's lowest company tax rates. 30% is only a nominal rate. You can't compare it with the nominal rates in countries where a host of levies take the actual rate to double what is stated.

    No company that dodges tax is going to pay just because the rate is halved. They will just invest less in dodging, but still pay nothing.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:19pm
    " they will pay no tax but at a much lower rate. "

    Thanks, OM - I needed that one...
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:30pm
    If they pay tax offshore, then they pay the top-up to our rate back here as well...

    Say Ripoff Industries pays 5% in The Haymans - that means they owe us the difference of 25% (30% - 5%) or five times that amount back here...

    Easy as pie...

    and no franking.... that's fix all the whining and misinformation going around.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:44pm
    I'm thinking of paying tax in NZ instead of here now.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:04pm
    Go for it - we'll deem you to be worthy of paying our tax rate here, and you can pay Oz the difference...
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:20pm
    If Old Geezer gives me a choice of which country I would like to pay tax in it would be Bermuda for me (no income tax at all). A reason why Reg Grundy moved there no doubt - made his money here on TV and then shifted. Watch out when Shorten gets in more people might do just that. Sweden saw the big boys shifting out as well and some
    (like IKEA founder) went to Switzerland, somewhat warmer and more tax friendly.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:34pm
    Vanuatu has no income tax too.
    Rae
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:13pm
    You could move the business to China. No tax and certain government grants and concessions. It's no wonder everyone is doing it.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:40pm
    Move your money offshore and under the new rules you will be paying top-up to our tax rate at eh difference between our rate and theirs.

    Most advanced nations are looking closely at the global shifty tax market....
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:53pm
    OG: what in not ok is that companies can EXPORT profits to somewhere they pay nil tax.
    Please ring our wealthy PM and ask him WHY he does not legislate to make this illegal. Labor and Greens will support this Bill.
    No comment??????
    ozrog
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:37pm
    Pensions should reflect the average wage then we will see if they are serious.
    Who can live on $22,000 p.a?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:43pm
    Well, it seems greedy ''entitled'' pensioners think self-funded retirees should live on less, while paying 40% tax on income that should be tax free.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:14pm
    Rainey for a while there you were starting to make some sense. But some of your comments are starting to sound like old Rainey. Maybe you need to calm down and take a little rest until you start to make sense again? I'm not being rude , but you are starting to sound a bit stressed.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:31pm
    You don't pay 40% on your income, OGR - simply not possible.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:08pm
    Under Shorten's proposal some people will pay a lot more than 40% of their income in tax.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:26pm
    Trebor, you need to stop arguing based on assumptions and start paying attention to the facts. If an SFR couple have $450,000 of super funds each, invested in Australian shares, they are forfeiting $34,000 a year in pension income by having saved. At the government-declared average rate of return, they are getting $22,500 a year each GROSS. They probably pay a few thousand a year for administration and management costs, but we'll ignore that for now.

    During the year, at 5% gross, they receive $15750 each in dividend income, plus franking credits of $6750 (making a total $22500 each gross income). Now, Shorten says that because they don't pay tax (of course they do, but he claims they don't!) AND they don't get a $34,000 a year handout, they therefore should NOT be able to claim their $6750 tax refund that they currently receive.

    That means that their gross income is $22500 each, and they are taxed directly $6750 per year, reducing their income to $15750 net, IN ADDITION to being indirectly ''taxed'' $34,000 a year + the value of concessions by being denied a pension.

    You work out the percentages. I calculate 30% direct tax (sorry, my bad - it isn't 40%, it's only 30% - on non-taxable income!!!!) and their total contribution to government, if we value concessions at $3000 a year, is $43,750 annually, or 97% of their gross income.

    Conversely, if they had only $300,000 in shares between them, they would get $15,000 gross income from dividends, plus a pension of more than $34,000 a year, plus concessions, totalling over $50,000 a year. and they would retain their franking credits in full and pay only indirect taxes. And that's regardless that they may have a $5 million house and be worth $3.5 million more than our SFR couple!

    If they had $3 million each in super invested in shares, they would get $150,000 each a year in income and pay tax of $10,500 a year each, and be able to claim up to $10,500 a year of franking credits - thus paying $0 tax. The more they have over $3 million, the more credits they can claim.

    Now tell me this is reasonable!!!!
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:30pm
    “Greedy, entitled pensioners”
    How greedy can you be on a pension lol OGR?! Oxymoron!
    Stop trying to drive a wedge between people!
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:52pm
    They're not 'forfeiting', Rainey - they are not eligible under the current rules - so they are not gifting anything to anyone or paying that as tax.

    You know I advocate a Universal Pension etc...

    I take it you are discussion concessions for pensioners - well - again - under the current rules some are not eligible - and you know that I've disagreed with that for low income earners. Again this is not a tax.

    You are, in reality, only paying tax on your earned income - which if as you say is only around $37k - you will not pay very much at all.

    It is obvious from your figues that Shorten was right and the franking rorts need to be looked at, and again - you would NOT be losing the entire 30% - it would simply be, as it should be, added to your gross income for tax calculation. That the big boys are getting away with a heap shows why it needs to be changed.

    Try again:- it is tax paid on your behalf to the ATO - same as income tax from PAYE is paid on their behalf to the ATO - at year's end that income tax still comprises part of a PAYE's gross income for calculation - there is zero reasoning to argue that franked dividends should not be treated exactly the same.

    Once more - if you are only earning $37k gross - your tax burden annually will not rise above the tax-free threshold - $18,200 - and would then be 19c in the dollar for the difference between $37,000 and $18,200 = $3572. Shorten's proposal will not alter that.

    What concerns me is that you appear to be very poorly off and yet receive no concessions - concessions are something I consider should be part of retirement packaging - with a reasonable ceiling.

    Why are you not receiving a low income card or a pension top-up if your combined income for two falls way below pension level, which it surely must do if you deduct accounting and management costs of shares etc?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:24pm
    Firstly, Trebor, you are right that dividend income should be treated the same as PAYE income, and therefore the low income earner should get deducted tax refunded. That's how it is now. Shorten wants to change that and retain the deducted excessive tax if the taxpayer is an SFR with less than $1.6 million. That's what he calls ''taxing the wealthy''. He says he's targeting those with more than $2.4 million, but in fact they will NOT pay more. The only people who will pay more are workers on lower incomes who own shares and SFRs with less than $1.6 million.

    Secondly, concessions are restricted based on assets. Income is not relevant. Same as pensions. It doesn't matter how low your income, if you have assets, you miss out.

    Finally, my tax burden WILL rise to 30% of my income REGARDLESS OF INCOME, because I invest in Australian shares and I am not a pensioner. The thresholds DO NOT APPLY under Shorten's revised policy. They are no longer relevant. All that matters is that you get dividend income and are an SFR with less than $1.6 million in super, OR you are employed on a lower wage. He's taxing the POOR, Trebor, and leaving the rich untouched. Yes, it's STUPID. That's what I've been trying to tell you. IT IS DAMNED STUPID AND GROSSLY UNFAIR.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:55pm
    OG: you are starting to run election propaganda for your political party. Can you give us the date set?
    Charlie
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:46pm
    I dun know what they are talkin about, but I bet it won't increase my pension or reduce my rent.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:59pm
    No Charlie. The current ''I'm entitled - bash everyone who works and saves'' mentality will probably result in a massive pension cut very soon, 'cause there will soon be hundreds of thousands more on pensions and nobody paying tax. Shorten will ensure only the filthy rich can retire self-funded. That will drive the cost of pensions sky high and increase pressure to make cuts.

    I don't support company tax cuts, but we DO need to stop making it detrimental to work and save.
    Charlie
    24th Apr 2018
    1:35am
    There I was right, they are up to no good.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    12:41pm
    Sure you were, Charlie. Well done.
    bordermum
    23rd Apr 2018
    12:58pm
    If it is good enough for big business it is good enough for every tax payer.

    Will big business have its tax deductions reduced as a result of the proposed tax cut. Effectively many companies may end up paying virtually nothing [some already do].

    Where is the proof that big business deserves the tax concessions it already receives? Coming out in the banking Royal Commission? I do not think so.

    Unscrupulous behaviour is not limited to the finance/banking industry. What about the energy companies?

    Daniel Andrews stunt to encourage consumers to seek comparisons on energy bills is simply a joke. In 2010 when I wanted to chagne from origin to Lumo, not only did Origin NOT arrange the final meter read I requested, it also failed to issue me with an account. Six months later, on the very same day, 2 bills arrived in the mail. By this time the agreement I hade made with Lumo had expired. Where is the choice here????

    My meter went unread for 4 years, I was issued with estimated accounts, which I duly paid.

    When I tried to arrange a final meter read in 2012, not only was I lied to by Origin staff about bookings made, I was mislead about arrangements for those readings.

    When I subsequently complained and suggested Origin either improve its staff training, or cease to train its staff to lie to its customers, I did not receive an apology, I received an estimated account for $26000. [After writing to the Ombudsman Origin recalculated and owed me a few thousand dollars].

    Why should unscrupulous companies receive tax cuts that are subsidised by the taxpayers they routinely lie to, bully, deceive and intimidate?

    23rd Apr 2018
    1:01pm
    I just spent $30 on a 40-minute phone call to a freight company to get them to correct a stupid error misspelling a street name. I was on hold for 37 minutes. And these WHINGERS want a tax cut to compensate for their gross inefficiency. Maybe they should be run out of business to make room for competitors who can do the job properly and wouldn't need a tax cut to be profitable?
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:33pm
    Why would you pay for a phone call? Where were you calling?
    I pay $36 per month on my mobile and all calls are free.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:54pm
    I pay $14.50 a month and all calls are free....
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:17pm
    I pay for calls to 1300 numbers. They are not included in any affordable plans offered in my area. Unfortunately, I could not find a regular number for that company.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:20pm
    My phone and all calls come free with my NBN. Paying less than half now than I was before the NBN and internet is about 10 times faster. Thanks Makcom for the NBN.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:33pm
    Most of mine do too, VGB, but I'm currently away from home caring for grandchildren and my son has no landline so I am forced to use my mobile. I seldom use a mobile, so I don't have a generous plan.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:47pm
    If you need to make calls on a mobile get $10 Telstra SIM card and you can make unlimited calls for 7 days. Got a couple the other day for 50c each in a throw out box at Officeworks.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:56pm
    Use Skype. Cheep, cheep, cheep!
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    12:40pm
    No Skype in our area, Mick. I used it a lot before our last move, but it simply doesn't work where we are. Telstra mobile is pretty hopeless also. I had far too many problems with Telstra.
    KSS
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:02pm
    When whatever companies are left in Australia start looking overseas and seeing costs come down there and decide to take their remaining business offshore and adding to the unemployment numbers, are those whinging about lowering company tax going to step up and provide new jobs for the hundreds and thousands of newly unemployed or are they going to jump up and down for the tripple amount of pension, have hands out for more welfare and continue to demand anyone who is not doing the same are too wealthy and should pay more tax?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:11pm
    Except when they move overseas, KSS, they will discover that the taxes there are HIGHER than ours when everything is counted correctly. What they will also discover, though, is that wages are much lower - so what we really need to do is... um? Lower wages? How about we just totally demolish our standard of living so CEOs and Directors can reap a few extra million? Kill all welfare and services completely. Reduce wage earners to slavery, living in boxes and begging for food. Then the greedy corporations will be happy to stay.

    Yes, there WILL be others to take the place of greedy corporations if they leave - except they won't, because they want access to our market.

    What we really need to do is force companies to restrict salaries at the top end and spend their profits employing more people and paying fairer wages at the low end. Maybe we should offer tax cuts ONLY to those companies that prove they have done that?
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:17pm
    You're talking about a race to the bottom where wage earners pay all the tax. Nope I don't agree.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:57pm
    Are you responding to me or to Tib, KSS. I don't think I'm talking about a race to the bottom - and I certainly don't suggest wage earners should pay all the tax.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:09pm
    Let them go - someone will leap at the chance to take over their 'market share' - you can't beat that drum and scare the birds, KSS>

    We are better of without leeches that don't pay taxes.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/corporate-tax-data-released-by-ato/9236878
    KSS
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:18pm
    You mean the way we are glad to see the back of the car manufactures, other manufacturing businesses, customer service centres.......... to name just a few Tib?
    Rae
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:30pm
    KSS we can't compete with China which is a huge big tax haven that also discounts rents etc as well to attract business. They don't have to worry about welfare or pensions as there are none.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:55pm
    The car companies - all foreign, BTW - made their decision to move offshore from here... you cannot blame workers and wages for those decisions taken at international level.

    If you wish to see wages come down to approach Asian one - first lower costs of living - then watch trade dry up since nobody will have 'extra' dollars to buy anything.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:12pm
    Rainey I'm talking to KSS. I agree Trebor.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:01pm
    KSS: you have completely misconstrued the truth.
    Companies are CHOOSING zero/low taxing countries and the current government is not doing anything about making this ILLEGAL. It clearly should be as this is a total scam.
    Jobs are disappearing because of continuing mechanisation and robotics.
    We are importing people we have no need of and who will be on benefits for their whole lives to satisfy the bleeding hearts...who then blame government for the plight of the nation.

    This is not a taxing question. It is a MANAGEMENT issue with our country. Please....let's not run political propaganda for your team.
    Tib
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:05pm
    No to the company tax cuts. Some reasonable increase in the pension is fair with support for self funded retirees. It's not that hard , but this government won't do it.
    bordermum
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:10pm
    Well KSS, those companies are still operating here, even though they claim the tax rate is too high. It must be worth their while or they would already have moved off shore. The majority of large companies are making profits here regardless.

    I do not think there will be a sudden exodus of large companies.

    I say take away tax rebates from everyone and lower the tax rate for everyone.

    If you are worried about losing big business, how low are you prepared to go with tax cuts? Perhaps when other countries cut their rates to better compete with Australia we should be prepared to lower our rates again? Down to zero?

    Perhaps we should all pitch in with donations to big business?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:43pm
    Have a look what has happened to Paypal and eBay recently?
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:10pm
    Well, wow - those are huge Australian companies right there...
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:48pm
    They are not Australian companies.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:56pm
    Exactly my point - they get away without paying tax because our taxation rules have not caught up with the 'global economy' -YET!
    Mad as Hell
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:19pm
    How can the LNP steal 330,000 pensioners entitlements with a broken election promise and then argue for this company tax cut? Hypocrites.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:58pm
    Labor now wants to take away 30% of their income now too.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:11pm
    Lies, OG - Labor simply wants to ensure that those who receive franking credits ensure that is added to their gross for tax calculation and not just accepted as a free gift.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:13pm
    Good question, Mad as hell. But now Labor wants to finish 100,000 of those folk off entirely by taking up to 40% of their income in tax - seemingly to fund continued handouts of franking credits to anyone with substantial wealth or a high income.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:17pm
    Trebor franking credits are already included in one's gross income to calculate one's tax. It is the same as a wage earner.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:19pm
    https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/IND/downloads/Tax-return-for-individuals-2017.pdf

    Page 3 you will see franking credits are added to gross income.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:00pm
    Trebor, I have admired your intelligence and knowledge, but you are DEAD WRONG about franking credits. Franking credits have ALWAYS been added to gross income for tax calculation. What Shorten wants to do is continue giving tax reductions for franking credits to those whose tax rate is 30% a year or more, and to retirees who have more than $1.6 million in super, and to pensioners, BUT DENY THOSE SAME CREDITS TO ANYONE WITH LESS THAN $1.6 MILLION WHO DOESN'T GET A PENSION - and to workers who don't earn enough to pay 30% tax.

    It's taking from the poor to preserve a benefit for the rich - Robin Hood in reverse!

    The way it currently works is correct and fair. You are entitled to $100 in gross dividends, you get about $57, and a tax credit for the other $43. At the end of the year, you declare your income, INCLUDING your dividend. If your income doesn't justify a tax of $43 on that $100, you get it back. Just as you would expect if $43 was taken from your $100 in wages. If your income is high, you claim the $43 as tax already paid and it reduces the additional tax the ATO bills you for.

    That's right and fair. No rorts involved.

    What Shorten is saying is that if you earn a high wage, or have more than $1.6 million in super, or receive a part pension (even if, like BigBear, you are wealthy!), you get a tax credit for that $43 - and a cash refund if applicable, but if you earn a LOW wage or are retired with LESS than $1.6 million in super but no pension, then the government gets to keep that $43 despite the fact that you should not have been taxed under our tax laws.

    The more you earn or have, the less you lose under Shorten's policy. Self-funded retirees will lose up to 40% of their income, regardless of the fact that their gross may be LESS than the pension and they may have far LESS assets than many pensioners who own lavish homes or have rich younger spouses.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:03pm
    Correction, that's self-funded retirees with LESS than $1.6 million will lose up to 40% of their income. Once you get over that threshold, your losses gradually reduce until Shorten's CLAIMED target group - those with more than $2.4 million in super - would be unlikely to suffer any loss at all!
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:28pm
    Whoops, apologies, it's 30% of their income - not 40% - of income that by law should be tax fee and in many cases is LESS than the pension.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:37pm
    Can be 40% or more depending on what deductions they have against their income.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:04pm
    Well said - OG - now you are talking sense - so if franking credits are already included in gross INCOME (not assets) - and will still be included regardless of changes - how is anyone missing out?

    Which leads us to the question - what is the loophole that Shorten is trying to plug?

    How many self-funded retirees have a income of $1.6m from their investments, OGR? Not you, surely..

    Assets of $1.6m are irrelevant - franked dividends are part of gross earnings, not assets. It follows that once past the highest tax bracket for income, those getting ore will pay proportionately less... are you arguing that we need extra income brackets to control this excess?

    At the moment the highest tax bracket comes into play at $200k - still not 40% for every dollar.... (sighs) I wasted my time doing the figures for you - some of you seem to assume that you will be paying top tax bracket on every dollar.... get over it.

    If you're pulling $200k INCOME for sitting on your arse - you still get the tax free threshold of $187,200, then 19 on the dollar up to $38000... and so forth...

    You will NOT be paying 40% on every dollar earned, and if you are so poor and struggling, Rainey, on an income of $37,000 - why are you even discussing this? It would not affect you one iota, since you will not exit the lowest tax bracket....
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:12pm
    Trebor you are making no sense at all to me.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:36pm
    I know how hard figures and facts are for you, OG.

    If there are loop-holes that are allowing people to be paid that 30% franking credit, and it is not included in their gross income for taxation purposes - that needs to be changed now.

    You seem to be confusing $1.6m in asset with $1.6m in INCOME - how can I make it clearer to you tat you pay tax on INCOME - and that includes the 30% tax paid on your behalf to the ATO. On final calculation you may or may not receive some back - but if you don't you are already getting such a heap in dividends that you should be paying tax.

    Small shareholders will not be affected.

    I'm not going to do the figures for you again - from memory - you would need to be pulling $100,000 + to enter the overall 30% tax bracket. Rainey says consistently that he is nowhere near that - so there is zero argument for his perspective.

    Why should someone who is receiving - say $1.6m in dividends, NOT be paying tax? Even if the imputation was 30% - someone with an INCOME of $1.6m is liable for no tax return but for further taxation, according to the income tax scales.

    It's not that hard.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:41pm
    Trebor, you obvious DON'T GET IT. You need to go back to school.

    The LNP capped tax-free super at $1.6 million. Over that, it's taxed, and when you pay tax, you get your franking credits under Short-on's unfair proposal. But if you have LESS than $1.6 million, you legally shouldn't pay tax, so Shorten says you DON'T GET CREDITS. So you DO pay 30% under Short-on's unfair policy.

    Now, if you only have $450,000 each (for a couple), then your income is $22,500 GROSS each, but Short-on is taking 30% of that, leaving a couple with MUCH less than the pension.

    Don't you get it? Shorten is THROWING OUT THE INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS ONLY IF YOU ARE AN SFR INVESTED IN AUSTRALIAN SHARES. Yes, OTHER folk will have to have high incomes to pay 30%, but SFRs are being persecuted and another law entirely applied to them if they dare to invest in Australian shares.

    We are ENTITLED UNDER LAW to have our dividend income tax free, just like any other income is tax free for low income SFRs - as it SHOULD BE in recognition of their huge contribution to the budget. But Shorten has decided that they have no right to invest in Australian shares, and if they do they will be taxed at 30% regardless of their income, UNLESS they have high wealth and a high income, in which case they WON'T be taxed.

    Why does he want to stop investment in Australian companies? How much growth will he obstruct by pushing investment elsewhere? And how many SFRs will claim pensions to avoid being unfairly persecuted. I can tell you I've had a gut full of the bullying and abuse, and I'm not even actually an SFR yet. In my late 60s, I'm still working.

    The stinking elite pensioner brigade are thoroughly disgusting with their greed and selfishness. I worked hard. I went without a lot. I had NO LUCK. And it's bloody disgraceful that stinking greedy envy-driven ''entitled'' welfare recipients approve of me being reduced to poverty by unfair taxation.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:50pm
    BTW Trebor. You are missing the point entirely. Shorten is NOT TAKING A CENT FROM THE GUY WITH $1.6 MILLION IN INCOME. He's NOT TAKING ANYTHING from the wealthy. If they have income that is legally taxable under current law, they RETAIN THEIR BENEFIT.

    What he is doing is inverting the usual principle of wealthier pay more. He's changing the rules so that the POOREST PAY THE MOST, unless they are pensioners.

    Income is no longer the determinant of tax under his rules. You automatically pay 30% if you are an SFR investing in Australian shares. Under his rules, your income and assets are NOT relevant until you become rich enough to be liable to pay tax on your super. THEN you get a benefit. All that matters is that you are an SFR and you chose to invest in Australian shares. That makes you a target for his unfairness. That makes your tax rate 30% - unless you have more than $1.6 million in super or substantial private earnings.

    If you would STOP trying to justify his nonsense by ASSUMING that he is telling the truth about attacking the wealthy, you might be able to figure out what he's really doing. I assure you, it has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH TAXING THE WEALTHY. They don't pay a cent more.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:59pm
    Here are the income tax brackets:-

    0 – $18,200 - Nil

    $18,201 – $37,000 - 19c for each $1 over $18,200

    $37,001 – $87,000 - $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000

    $87,001 – $180,000 - $19,822 plus 37c for each $1 over $87,000

    $180,001 and over - $54,232 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

    Let's take an example of someone receiving a TOTAL INCOME (including franked dividend tax of 30% paid on behalf)from dividends alone (no other income tax paid).. of $200,000.

    Tax free threshold = $18,200 - remainder $191,800.

    First tax bracket = $0.19c per dollar for $37,000-18200 = $3572.

    Tax % paid = $3572/37000 x 100 = 9.65% of gross.

    Second tax bracket = $3572 + 32.5 c in the dollar on $87,000-37,001 = $50,000 x .325 +3572 = total tax $19,822.

    Tax % paid = 19,822/87000 x 100 = 22.78% of gross.

    Third tax bracket = $19,822 + 37c in the dollar on 180,000 - 87,000 = 19,822 + 34,410 = total tax $54,232

    Tax % paid = $54232/180,000 x 100 =$30.12%

    ERGO! If you are earning JUST UNDER $180,000 in dividends and your franking credit is 30% - you receive no return... but you also pay no more tax.

    So you have to earn ~178,000 in franked dividends to not get a tax return for dividend imputation of 30%. Why is that so hard?

    You are obliged to pay tax and all this flim-flammery about Shorten's idea is meaningless, unless some are getting away with paying no tax while recouping massive payments in dividends... over around $178,000 at least. Above that amount they will be obliged to pay tax - it is not a free ride - and from the figures thrown about NOBODY here is affected since they do not cop over $178,000 in franked dividends/total income.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:00pm
    We're not talking about super here - we're talking about dividend imputation and taxable income.

    Why are you seeking to confuse the two issues, Rainey?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:15pm
    Tax brackets are NOT relevant under Short-on's BS policy, Trebor. Income doesn't matter - unless you are wealthy. Super is a major issue, because super income is supposed to be tax free if generated from assets below $1.6 million. What Shorten is saying is that if you have more than $1.6 million in super, a high private income, you can claim a tax credit for the tax the company paid on your dividend income. But if you have LESS than $1.6 million in super and no taxable income, then you pay 30% tax on all of your dividend income, even though legally you should not be liable to pay tax - and even though you are left with less income than a pensioner.

    On the other hand, the richer you are, the more you benefit from franking credits under Shorten's scheme.
    Sundays
    24th Apr 2018
    8:35am
    Trebor, SFRs with money is super in Pension phase draw tax free superannuation. If they have money in Australian shares they get the Franking Credits refunded because they don’t pay tax. Under Shortens proposal this would cease, yet those on the OAP would still receive Franking Credits to top up their pension. It is very unfair to SFR whose income is sometimes less than the pension. Those with very large balances in super, or people with money in industry super will not be affected. This is because the funds and those with high super balances pay tax and will still be able to offset the Franking Credits. The Labor party were bandying examples around of people rorting the system, but have disregarded the bulk of self managed super funds
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    12:36pm
    What astounds me is how few picked up on the massive untruth Labor is telling. They say they are targeting retirees with more than $2.4 million in super - and some are paying no tax but getting $2.5 million in franking credit refunds IN CASH.

    Firstly, they are NOT targeting retirees with more than $2.4 million because those retirees ARE taxed (unless they rort, which is a different issue entirely). The impact of Shorten's tax begins to reduce when someone gets to $1.6 million in super. He is targeting those with LESS than $1.6 mil., and the more you have over that threshold, the LESS impact his policy will have. However, it will cripple retirees with less than $1 million, who will be the main losers under his policy.

    As for people getting $2.5 million in cash refunds - WHO PLEASE BS? Gina R? You would need over $100 million in shares and an income of some $8 million a year. If anyone is getting that and not paying taxes, slugging poor SFRs with less than $1 million and incomes around the aged pension level IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THE BETTER.

    Problem is, far too many are believing Shorten's popularist lies. He says he is making the wealthy pay their share, which sounds good. But Labor voters don't bother to investigate and see that he's LYING. The policy he is promoting DOESN'T TOUCH THE WEALTHY.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:21pm
    Anyway - the way I see it - as a carer and a pensioner, I should be getting both (full carer Pension rather than a brown paper bag fortnightly that doesn't cover the cost of fuel) - would certainly help with my planning for cruises and stuff... check out The Black Sea ... but watch out for falling Russian space debris or falling aircraft parts...
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:29pm
    Your lucky you get a paper bag. I don't but I pay for them instead.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:12pm
    AS it should be, OG - but I pay for my own since my dollars are all after tax dollars and pay tax every time I make a purchase.

    No free rides for me...
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:48pm
    So if you collect a pension and I don't, how do you conclude that you pay tax, but Shorten is right saying that I don't pay tax and shouldn't get a refund of franking credits? How does that work?

    I think it's time for a fact check and some decency and respect in society. I have stood up for pensioners again and again and again. But I'm paying for them. Every year, my partner and I forfeit $34,000 that we earned by paying taxes through our working life. Why? Because we worked harder and saved better than most. We pay the same indirect taxes as you do, Trebor. AND now pensioners are screaming that we should pay another 40% tax on our income as well. That would put our total contribution to government at $45,000 a year, from an income of $30,000 a year. And pensioners REFUSE to support our protest.

    Who is NOT getting a free ride?
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:38pm
    OGR, you pay tax when you shop, use services, etc. it is called GST.
    Pensioners are not bludgers as you infer. Why try to upset people and cause disharmony?
    Carers save the government a lot of money as well.
    Living in your own home saves money rather than being in care.
    Try to be kinder!
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:07pm
    For the last time - everybody pays tax on every transaction - ever heard of GST and other taxes, fuel excises and such?

    Again you are totally wrong about the 40% or even 30%, Rainey - I'm not going to do the figures again.

    If you are indeed paying top tax bracket on your INCOME, then you are way above $200k income a year.

    If your gross income is $30k - you would pay tax on $11,800 @ 19c in the dollar - nowhere near 30-40% of your gross ...
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:35pm
    Bill Shorten will have SFRs paying 30% plus tax on their low income that they pay no tax on now.

    Gross income of $18,000 less franking credits of $6000 not refunded equals net income of $12,000. Tax rate is 33%. Earn $18,000 in interest and you pay no tax.

    What is there you don't understand?
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:23pm
    Kathleen, you and other ''entitled elite pensioners'' want to demolish my livelihood, for no better reason than that I worked hard and saved, and you think it's ''too funny'' that Shorten plans to take 40% of my tiny income. Don't tell me to be ''kinder''. And don't tell me about carers either. I am one. Have been for decades. Only nobody pays me anything for those services.

    BTW. The LNP DID sort out franking credits first - the RIGHT WAY. They capped tax free superannuation at $1.6 million, which means that lying Shorten is ONLY attacking those with less than that. His IDIOTIC policy hands out generously to anyone with more.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:28pm
    Trebor, it's mind-boggling that someone so obviously intelligent can fail to understand simple math. I laid it out for you. OG laid it out for you. Can you not read?

    Shorten is taking 30% of my VERY LOW INCOME. It's horrific that people are actually refusing to acknowledge the unfairness of this. Is envy so infectious and all-consuming that fairness just goes out the window and all anyone can think of is ''take from them and give to me''? It's SICK.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:54pm
    Trebor, you are right about tax under CURRENT RULES. To pay the highest tax rate CURRENTLY, I'd have to have a high income.

    Shorten is THROWING OUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM. He has decided that he hates SFRs so much, and apparently hates Australian companies also, that he's going to ignore ALL the usual tax rules in the case of SFRs who invest in Australian companies and tax them 30% of their total income, UNLESS THEY HAVE A HIGH INCOME, in which case they will remain eligible to benefit under the current rules.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:02pm
    If that is the case, then the idea is ridiculous. Surely even a Bill Shorten could not be that stupid... but I'm young yet and have seen some doozies going past.....
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:09pm
    Well, finally you seem to get it Trebor. That IS what Shorten is doing. That's EXACTLY what he's doing. And yes, the idea IS ridiculous, and I wouldn't have thought even Short-on could be that stupid, but clearly he can be. He IS.

    He's totally inverting the whole tax system. Currently, the company doesn't pay tax. The shareholder does. The company only remits to the ATO, and then the shareholder is assessed and either pays more, breaks even, or gets a refund depending on his total taxable income. Shorten is NOT changing that for the wealthy, or for pensioners. That rule STILL applies for them. But for SFRs who are NOT wealthy, the rule changes and THEY PAY THE 30% RATE FOR THE COMPANY.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:28pm
    Glad to see you have finally seen as stupid this franking tax grab for low income earners is Trebor. Even though as a pensioner i am now exempted but for awhile I thought my income was going to be significantly reduced. So glad I am not a SFR as they are being really done over on this.
    DaveL
    23rd Apr 2018
    1:54pm
    Here’s an idea. How about getting rid of the Senior Pensioner Tax Offset Rebate. Save a fortune.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:05pm
    Good idea pensioners could pay their fair of tax then.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:13pm
    They already do.......

    we'll swap you the Seniors Offset for zero reduction in pension for working and then tax on gross - minus our insulated pensions.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    9:14am
    How about getting rid of all taxes except a small Tobin tax and fairness all round.
    Snowflake
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:17pm
    OG I agree credit cards are good, in the hands of people who can manage money. But the banks really don't want those people because they can't make money out of them. They want the people who are less fortunate in their ability to juggle their finances. But they don't matter, do they OG?
    Unfortunately, people do over extend to a great degree in this country but I seem to think that the banks let them do it. After all profits of 4.5 billion for six months has got to come from somewhere.
    I also have a bank with no fees, but if asked them for a mortgage then those fees would start to appear like mortgage guarantees and all the other bullshit fees they impose.
    If you can get a loan without fees please do share who that would be with. I have a feeling it should be relegated to the library under Fairytales.
    You know OG, you seem to be very elitist. Do you look down on the rest of us from the pile of bodies you have trampled over in your life. Because that's how you sound to me.

    OGR I may be wrong but doesn't the government top up income that falls below the pension.
    I have to question that all self funded retirees were frugal throughout their lives just so they wouldn't be a burden on the state. How altruistic of them all.I have nothing against self funded or not self funded retirees.They all deserve to be able to live a decent life.

    First time in my life I have been called a bully. Not sure where that came from but if it means I have different views to you then guilty as charged. I think all the OG's should get a social conscience and not compare themselves to people who are less fortunate.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:28pm
    So the bank holds a gun at people's head so they spend on their credit cards? I maxed out one of my credit cars this month but all that means to me is lots of points towards my yearly flight.

    I am a realist not an elitist and I know what is possible if you ask. I don't take can't as an answer to anything but tell people the word they should use is wont.

    Many self funded retires would love a top up if their income falls below the pension but as you say that only happens in fairyland. Many self funded retirees have income below the pension and live on less than the pension as well.

    I really take offense to your statement "I have to question that all self funded retirees were frugal throughout their lives just so they wouldn't be a burden on the state. How altruistic of them all."

    That says to me that self funded retirees are real mugs for planning their retirement so as to not put their hand out to the taxpayer to pay for it instead.

    Yes you are a welfare bully.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:41pm
    Snowflake, not ALL self-funded retirees were frugal so that they would not be a burden on the state, but a vast number were. And your assumption that everyone is like your rich friend is deeply offensive and very cruel.

    And YES, you ARE WRONG. The government does NOT top up self-funded retiree income when it falls below the pension. They don't even give them concessions that richer pensioners get. And if Shorten has his way, their income will be double-taxed, at up to 40%, while the wealthy and pensioners retain their franking credits. Far from attacking the wealthy, as he claims, Shorten is ONLY going after the less well off. The rich will continue to enjoy the same tax reductions.

    Clearly, you DO have something against self-funded retirees, because your comment was very mean and nasty, and completely baseless.

    Sadly, self-funded retirees ARE real mugs for not planning their retirement so they could put their hands out for the taxpayer. It's time pensioners stopped bullying and started saying ''thank you'' to people who are helping to ensure the nation can afford to support those who can't support themselves. It's way past time pensioners started demanding the government treat SFRs fairly and with respect. Most SFRs have stood up for pensioners whenever the opportunity arose. It's shameful that envy-driven pensioners can't show the same decency. And it's sad that pensioners are too envy-consumed to recognize that if SFRs are persecuted until they give up and claim pensions, there won't be enough to go around and pensioners will lose.
    GrayComputing
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:21pm
    It is time for the government (and for all of us to continue to rant at them) to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    For the retired and retiring people in your electorate do you think they really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules
    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly,

    As an MP do you really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    As a MP you even stand to lose your chance at being part of the government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.


    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:29pm
    Please don't post that again it is becoming very annoying.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    2:31pm
    Keep posting it, Gray Computing. But assure me you are sending it to all politicians and their economic advisers, lobby groups, ''think tanks'', etc.
    Mad as Hell
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:42pm
    Agree with you Gray Computing. Keep posting.
    floss
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:21pm
    NO ASSETT TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:35pm
    Ha ha glad I have earphones on.
    HarrysOpinion
    23rd Apr 2018
    3:55pm
    The minimum weekly wage (MWW) in 2017 was $694.80 pw for a 38 hour week before tax. After tax = $629.29 pw.
    Single pensioner gets $445 per week with supplements. That’s 70.71% of MWW after tax.
    Some countries pay pensions of 100%.
    The old age pension for single pensioner should be at the same level as the net amount after tax of the MWW adjusted annually by the growth rate of average weekly wage. In Nov 2017 that was 2.4%.
    This is a more reasonable amount than the triple increase suggested in this article.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:04pm
    Sounds good to me as it costs you a lot less to live when you are not working.
    Rae
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:44pm
    And everyone over the eligible age should get it. Savers should not be discriminated against as it was a choice not to spend in the first place. Australia is one of the very few pension paying countries to have this form of inequality.
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:50pm
    I think renters need more help with their rent or there needs to be affordable housing for low income people whether pensioners or not. And don’t lump them together just include in new buildings around different places.
    Give back the 40% govt contribution towards private health cover for over 70 now down to under 35% and this could also include low income workers.
    Make sure reasonable home help is available as well.
    They are just some things without increasing the pension that would help.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:09pm
    Kathleen you want everything handed to you for nothing don't you?
    ABE
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:49pm
    Why not throw in a couple of cruises a year for Kathleen as well.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    6:13pm
    Nay they wouldn't be up to her standard.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:19pm
    It's costing some homeowners $500 a week to live in their own home, but let's reward all those who didn't bother to sacrifice for 30 years to pay off a mortgage. Yes, Micha, throw in some cruises, and a new car every four years, and... I wonder what else the pensioner elite would like, while they are declaring it ''too funny'' that people who worked their guts out and saved and are costing the nation virtually NOTHING in retirement have their incomes demolished?
    Adrianus
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:13pm
    Cut the company tax rate to 15% and minimise the franking credit leakage.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:23pm
    Please explain? Lay it all out for us....
    Adrianus
    24th Apr 2018
    6:51am
    TREBOR, take the example of a pensioner who receives pre-taxed dividends from her AMP share investment, which usually amounts to a $2,000 pa increase to her income. If the tax rate on AMP was halved then so too would the share holder's franking credit. Our pensioner would receive only $1000 pa.
    However under Shorten's plan of double dipping she would receive a $2,000 drop in her income.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    8:52am
    No, Adrianus. Under Shorten's plan, the pensioner loses NOTHING, but the self-funded retirees with an income LESS than the pension loses $2000, and if that prompts them to trade for a much more expensive house and claim a $34,000+ a year pension (for a couple), that's supposed to SAVE money. Shorten is an idiot. The franking credit policy is RIGHT as it is. Leave it alone and address the problems in a constructive way. But oh no! Shorten is making sure the RICH DON'T PAY, and sadly he lies well enough that the unconscious believe his crap.
    Adrianus
    24th Apr 2018
    2:15pm
    Well Rainey, it depends on what sort of pension you're on doesn't it?
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    7:24pm
    Well, yes. People who responsibly funded their own pension are discriminated against and those who rely on the public purse are favoured. That's hardly good for the national budget.

    I actually read somewhere that only people who were on the pension before March 28,2018 would retain their franking credits. So that would really create a ''them and us'' world in which fairness had no bearing on anything.
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    4:52pm
    Maybe penalise avoiders and reward the companies that put their hands up to pay tax. If avoiding then hit them with a big fine!
    Reward big companies for employing more people and training young workers.
    Some give and take!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:02pm
    Companies are not avoiding pay tax. That is a criminal offence.
    Kathleen
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:16pm
    Really? You actually think that?
    Of course they do!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:25pm
    Yes if you avoid paying tax you can go to jail.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:33pm
    Kathleen - stop believing the lies that labor and the Greens tell you

    This is the mentality of those brainwashed by cl;ass warfare
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    9:20am
    Tobin Tax. Everyone pays. The rich pay more because they have more. Now the really rich pay nothing as they don't live on income like the 90% do. With a money transfer tax the cashflow would be taxed. I can't see any other solution especially with automation ramping up. Robots don't pay GST or income taxes.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    2:15pm
    the rich don't live on income ?

    i guess they live on fresh air and sun shine then
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    6:41pm
    I think what Rae means, Raphael, is that they don't spend much of their income, and most don't earn it in a way that enables income tax to be collected.

    GST is a very unfair tax indeed, because poorer folk spend most of their income and therefore are taxed on most of their income, whereas the wealthy only spend a small portion and save or invest the rest. A transaction tax would mean they would pay some tax on the money they move around to invest. That's why the rich are so opposed to it.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    9:21pm
    i think you'll find the transaction tax will hurt the poor more than the rich
    The poor do a lot more transactions then the rich
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    6:52am
    No, Raphael, because it's a PERCENTAGE of the transaction. The poor do lots of transactions, but they are very small. It's the wealthy who do the large transactions.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    25th Apr 2018
    8:32am
    Wealthy will just use overseas bank accounts for all their transactions so pay no transaction tax.
    Rae
    26th Apr 2018
    8:51am
    The very wealthy I know live mainly on cashflow and capital gains so pay little or reduced taxes from those who rely on income and pay high income taxes. Howard halving the capital gains tax worked very well for them.

    The UN suggest the low transaction tax would need to be universal. They did figures on a 0.05% tax. This would mean the worker would pay less than now but the wealthy and corporations moving billions around would pay much more.

    The other solution is somewhere like China where there is no tax and no welfare.

    If we are trying to compete with a huge tax haven to support a welfare state we will fail badly.

    The big mistake we made was not ensuring our resources earned Australia money rather than the multinationals. Norway has a system where the mines are owned by the country and the miners are contracted to work the mines for the Government.

    This is what Whitlam tried to do with that $4 billion loan.

    The media crucified that idea as it did not suit the major shareholders of mining companies and they brought down a government over it.

    We had our chance and let the Owners of Capital snatch it away.
    edly
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:01pm
    Seems to me that we should have a company turnover tax, then all companies operating in Australia pay a fair share rather than the present system where companies use tax havens and nefarious tax dodges to avoid paying tax. There also needs to be a review of the personal taxation system that forces those on high incomes to pay tax commensurate with their income as do lower income wage and salary earners.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:03pm
    GST on steroids. No one would do any business in Australia.
    TREBOR
    23rd Apr 2018
    5:24pm
    The kind of business that doesn't employ people, doesn't pay tax, anddoesn't contribute to the nation is not the kind of business we want or need here.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:44pm
    OG, turnover tax has actually been shown to be very efficient, very fair, and a fantastic economic stimulus. Companies would pay their fair share, but painlessly. Everyone would pay fairly, and it would solve our budget problems. Just sad that the greedy rich who benefit from the current system won't consider anything that makes them pay their way.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    9:38pm
    It won't be worth having money in the bank if you get charged a tax every time you move it.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    8:54am
    VCB, you would be saving so much by NOT paying GST and income tax that only the wealthy would find the transaction tax even noticeable, and it's the RICH who we want to pay tax and who are currently avoiding. No wonder THEY don't want a transaction tax.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    9:25am
    Yes but at 0.05% and no other taxes at all the average person would still be ahead but Corporations would have to leave a bit behind when they take profits overseas and it would dissuade speculation and high volume trading.

    It's not worth having money in the bank now. In fact it is extremely risky having bank fixed interest or bank shares. The risks escalated with the Bail In Legislation we aren't talking about.

    23rd Apr 2018
    5:39pm
    Tax reform should focus on reducing the corporate tax rate. A high statutory corporate tax rate encourages profit shifting and discourages investment.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2018
    7:15pm
    According to Treasury modelling, accepted by the LNP, that is NOT TRUE. There will be virtually NO benefit from cutting company taxes. That's the official verdict, endorsed by the LNP. Why they persist with their rubbish is beyond me, but they justify it by saying that ''despite Treasury figures, their GUT INSTINCT says there will be a benefit''. Gut instinct? We know where what goes in the gut ends up, don't we?
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    9:30am
    All big Corporations transfer price anyway. It's their accountants preferred method of avoiding taxes.

    And they won't invest while wages are stagnant and disposable income low. It's share buy backs and excessive bonuses instead of any productive investment.

    Australia is a resource base with a government unable or unwilling to gain a share of the wealth for the people.

    We are running on worker's income taxes and a declining GST and that is not sustainable with the population explosion going on as well.
    Misty
    24th Apr 2018
    11:36pm
    I agree with your comment here about reducing company tax OGR.
    Jen50
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:40pm
    If the Age Pension was tripled, my husband and I would receive double what we earned when we were working. I really don’t know what we’d do with the extra money. I guess we’d just have to live in luxury for the rest of our lives. Or we could help the homeless.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    6:54am
    Yes, it's a bit ridiculous. And the same people who scream for huge pension increases then say SFRs are rich and should be stripped of all they have.
    inextratime
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:50pm
    OG I think you will find that MLC is owned by the NBA not the CBA. Are you a financial advisor too ?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    9:29pm
    CBA is considering selling off Colonial First State. NAB looking to sell off MLC and ANZ is divesting it's wealth creation business.

    Even your credit union has it's fingers in the wealth business pie.

    I remember the first investment I made in a managed investment. Thought it was a bit dodgy at the time but it made me quite a bit of money. That's when I thought if I want to invest I better educate myself.
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    9:32am
    Judging by the last MLC prospectus I read I'm surprised there hasn't been more said about them.
    ray from Bondi
    23rd Apr 2018
    8:55pm
    liberal Orwellian troll no end to them, how about comments on how reducing tax will help anybody other than the wealthy and liberal trolls who can only spew out rhetoric :)
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Apr 2018
    9:31pm
    It is easy to reduce your tax or pay no tax. Reduce your income or don't make any income.
    MICK
    23rd Apr 2018
    10:01pm
    Here we go again.

    "“I mean, let's get a little bit real here” says one of the coalition puppets. What O'Dwyer means is the top end of town have already locked in tax cuts and this government is funding this with cuts in services which most of us use, attacks on pensioners whom the current lot intend to asset strip and new taxes which affect average and poor citizens but which are not even on the radar for wealthy people.
    Cutting the company tax rate is a blatant transfer of wealth to the already rich. This is game is being run on a worldwide basis pitting nation upon nation to drive taxes for the rich down to nil and leave average citizens as the only people to pay tax. That is what the current government deems 'equitable'. It is Class Warfare. Nothing else. I hope that the mentally challenged amongst us are able to see the game for what it is and not help this lot back in. If so it will be a deal done for the rich.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    2:55am
    Only the mentally challenged see conspiracy theories everywhere
    Just like the mentally challenged who kept pushing for higher and higher wages without a corresponding increase in productivity which drove manufacturing off shore
    The same mentally challenged who want higher personal and corporate taxes that will drive corporate profits and wealth off shore
    At the end of the day it will be the poor who will be severely impacted by these mentally challenged myopia
    Rae
    24th Apr 2018
    11:30am
    Raphael productivity was rising very fast. Business went to China because there were no taxes, government incentives and slave labour. No environmental worries either.
    They have those now. They have no welfare or aged care to worry about.

    Sheer greed drove businesses into China with no thought for the consequences thus the GFC and it'll get worse. When the debt bubble collapses everyone will be affected.No way will the banks survive with the crazy loans they have been writing for decades now.

    We should have no taxes at all and just a teeny transaction tax then everyone would pay a bit and tax minimisation would be unnecessary.

    Take a good look at the graph that compares productivity growth against wage growth and the disconnect started around 1974. Our whole working lives has seen inequality rising.

    No conspiracy just human greed, hubris and spite.
    Sophie
    24th Apr 2018
    11:30am
    I'm not opposed to cutting the company tax rate in the distant future..but serious thought must be given as to how these cuts are paid for..that’s the question…

    Well..I have my view on this..something has to go to make the proposed tax cuts viable..and the first thing in my opinion will be social infrastructure. Our present and future generations of ordinary Australians will be the ones to foot the bill through paying higher personal tax..an increase in the GST etc..so in my opinion..this is not the time to cut corporate tax ..

    Another point..because of our unique system of dividend imputation.. this means that the benefits of any reduction in the corporate tax rate would largely go to foreign investors..I really don’t see how anyone can argue the opposite..except of course if you are a shareholder in a multiple Australian firms..immediately those shareholders will receive lower “franking credits” to offset their personal income tax liabilities. As a shareholder myself..I am not pretending that this does not make me feel a modicum of satisfaction..however..when I think of the consequences..I try to curb my enthusiasm..

    Some argue that Corporate tax rates around the world are falling and that is good enough reason for us to follow suit. For example.. they cite the US and Trump’s legislation to reduce their rate to a flat 21 per cent…but if we look further into this..one can see that while Australia’s 30 per cent looks high..the rate that companies actually pay are greatly reduced already by a range of deductions. In the US which seems so attractive at the moment..companies face hidden taxes ..for example state taxes and the costs of providing health insurance for employees..to name a few..

    The time will come when it makes sense to cut Corporate taxes to those companies that are doing the best for Australia..right now we are struggling to attract more investors and that is not because of the present tax rate..it is mainly because of where we are geographically and how stable our governments are..we have to prove ourselves…

    ----
    Adrianus
    24th Apr 2018
    2:25pm
    We have hidden taxes here too Sophie, such as payroll tax. I could never understand how a tax on payroll can help with wages growth or create more jobs? I would just like to see a halt to government spending increases. It is out of control. The more money they get the more they spend. When the unions are in government they run out of money and start borrowing like there's no tomorrow. It's a joke. And what do they spend on? Well legal fees for one. The Rudd government is being sued for that pink batts debacle which killed 4 people and destroyed countless lives.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    6:49am
    I suspect maybe payroll tax was intended to catch the big companies that avoid income tax.

    I agree spending is out of control, but the problem is that when anyone suggests cutting it, they always attack essential services and basic support for the needy. They are NEVER going to stop welfare for the wealthy.

    Legal fees? Just hang all lawyers! They are the greediest, most inept bunch of overpaid trouble-making egomaniacs alive. They serve no valid purpose other than to support corruption. But then, the whole legal system is such a farce that nobody with a brain, let alone integrity, would want to be involved with it.
    ABE
    25th Apr 2018
    2:33pm
    As usual Sophie another excellent post. I agree with your comments, but I see no mention was made about “tripling the age pension.” Are people really supporting this idea, that if the company tax is reduced, that’s how the “saving” should be utilised?? I am personally gobsmacked. I’d like to ask those people, if by some miracle this idea materialises, are they willing to pay for their own healthcare and other social benefits they enjoy at the moment??? Because the government (neither ALP nor LNP) sure as hell won’t be able to afford both.

    How about the cry for a “universal pension” which sounds great to those who haven’t lived in a country that has such a pension scheme. I have. Denmark has one of the highest income tax rates in the world, but the Danes have a different mentality to many Australians – they are happy to pay the high taxes because they know in return they’ll receive quality healthcare and social security in return.
    Who has the same confidence in our whingers to be like the Danes? Nah the universal pension to them will be a chance to live it up and even ask for a top up!
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    4:10pm
    Unfortunately I think many pensioners would whinge no matter how much they received. Many are pensioners because they are poor money managers, so nothing will ever be enough. Those who experienced genuine disadvantage seem content with their lot, despite the fact that the pension is rather pathetic if you have nothing else at all.

    As for SFRs, I honestly believe all they want is a FAIR DEAL. Yes, they do whinge - but not because they are greedy (as many would like to claim). Rather, they whinge because they are being denied fairness. While people are being rewarded for being irresponsible or manipulating, SFRs are being abused, bullied, and threatened with massive cuts to their income - in many cases AFTER having already lost a very large portion of it. They have a right to complain that they are being denied fair benefit for all their hard work and sacrifice. They have a right to complain that their lifestyle choices are not being respected. Why should the clubbing and holidaying set be given up to $2 million over their years in retirement while those who delayed gratification hoping to enjoy a higher living standard in retirement receive nothing and are now faced with the prospect of a grossly unfair tax?

    As VCB says, you need over $2 million to achieve the standard of living he enjoys on a pension, yet people with less than $1 million are deprived.
    GeorgeM
    24th Apr 2018
    3:40pm
    Good article. The findings are just COMMON SENSE!

    We MUST have a Minimum Tax system to ensure large companies and wealthy pay a Minimum Tax on Gross income (say 20% for companies, and 30% fir Individuals) without allowing any shonky deductions. If we provide any deductions, it should only be for Local Australian expenses, and NO UN-AUSTRALIAN Expenses such as Outsourced labour, materials or parts.

    Then, we will have NO PROBLEM to also implement an Universal Pension system for all from Age 65 (with Residence of say 15 years as only test) - with a suitably increased Age Pension, with all income above that (except a capped Super assets return on concessional tax) taxed at normal tax rates.

    All Older Australians need to join in and support the above measures (without bickering among themselves), as you can be on it that Politicians (who have already feathered their nests with large undeserved and untested pensions) will never push for any change to pensions.
    GeorgeM
    24th Apr 2018
    3:52pm
    Important points to note are "Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in all of the OECD", and “if Australia had the same tax to GDP ratio as the United Kingdom we could triple the Age Pension.”.
    For those who don't know, in USA in addition to Federal taxes, States also levy taxes, hence the headline rate for Federal tax rates are not valid for comparison.

    Also, even USA has had a Minimum Tax system for a very long time, due to which even Trump (with massive back losses to claim) had to pay $150 Million taxes in 2005.
    MINIMUM TAX is badly overdue here with a large number of companies (especially many large ones) and wealthy NOT PAYING ANY or paying NEGLIGIBLE Taxes.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2018
    6:36pm
    Shhh, George. You're not supposed to expose this information. Neither the government nor the ALP want people to know. They are trying to keep a myth alive so they can justify MORE tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations.
    Misty
    24th Apr 2018
    11:47pm
    I wonder if all those people who say they don't think the banks have done anything wrong and it is the fault of greedy, stupid people who are telling porkies are previous bank managers, have family involved with the banks and maybe have a large number of shares in these institutions, otherwise I cannot see how else they could be sticking up for them. No one is bank bashing, the banks are doing it themselves every day at the RC.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    6:45am
    OG has lots of bank shares. I have a few - not many! I acknowledge that the management of banks have behaved appallingly. I've seen many instances of shocking conduct. But why on earth does the media publish stories about greedy, stupid people? Printing a story about a dumb woman wanting to borrow $2 million when she had virtually no collateral and clearly no common sense doesn't support the impression that the banks are at fault. Are they trying to justify the conduct of bankers?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    25th Apr 2018
    7:53am
    Been listening to some of the questioning in the Royal Commission and they are master's at leading the witness which would not be allowed in a court of law.
    VicCherikoff
    25th Apr 2018
    10:50am
    If we addressed Australia's overpopulation there would be less need for infrastructure and social support and therefore less need for as much in tax revenues. We also need to cut the corruption of the pilferers, pirates and politicians (PPPs) so that bonuses, pensions and sky-high payments are eliminated. We also need to call in the taxes owed by multi-nationals including Fb, Google, Apple etc.

    And government could be trimmed substantially as few politicians are worth keeping. Have you attended parliament recently? It is worse than a school-ground brawl on some days. And we pay these fools?

    Let's instigate a new system where representatives are voted in, free of any party politics and charged to do the job for which they are truly elected. Their salaries are performance based and commensurate with the value delivered to the community.

    As for a company tax rate, this needs to be reverse-engineered. Work out our carrying capacity (about 16 million), estimate the works and public sector requirements, estimate sources of revenue ie employees and employers (with some public institutions paying their way and costs of royal commissions paid by the investigated organizations etc) and then work out the rate of company taxes to about break even.

    No point wishing that less company taxes will lead to a desirable outcome nor trusting that government will do the right thing in their planning (that is also independent of bribes and corruption). Let's also remember that Australia is way down on the list of countries with an honest public sector. There's not much transparency and too many PPPs with their hands in the kitty.

    The solution to this problem is not with the same kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place. (Thanks Einstein)
    Misty
    25th Apr 2018
    11:36am
    Sounds like Utopia VC, it would be wonderful if this were to happen but then we would have people from every other country wanting to live here too.

    25th Apr 2018
    2:51pm
    If lowering taxes doesnt help the economy, then we should raise taxes to 70% so the government can provide gold plated services to its citizens

    idiot lefties
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    3:55pm
    Idiot righties should recognize that our corporate tax rate is highly competitive already and it does not need to be changed in the current environment, but we do need to address avoidance and evasion. If we do that, there may be scope - later - to reduce the rate.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    4:02pm
    No lets raise it to 90% since low taxes make no difference to the economy
    Pension can be increased to 50k per year for ALL
    New start to $30k
    100% rebate on medical insurance - hell we wouldnt need insurance because the government will be rich enough to provide first class medical care
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    4:17pm
    Raphael, nobody is saying low taxes make no difference. They make a lot of difference. But cutting taxes that are already low doesn't deliver benefit to justify the cost. I haven't heard anyone suggest increasing taxes. We just need to ensure avoidance is addressed and people PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

    A nation needs a certain amount of revenue to provide essential services. It's always going to be a balancing act between using tax cuts to hopefully stimulate growth, and cutting services. The problem with company tax cuts is that it's been proved that they don't deliver economic benefit sufficient to justify their cost. With record profits, companies are paying low wages and putting workers off, so how is a tax cut going to result in higher wages or more employment? If they won't spend their record profits to stimulate growth, why would they spend tax savings that way? It's sad, but we know from observing the UK and US that they simply DO NOT.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2018
    4:23pm
    How about 95% then ? sounds good to me
    then we can have free fuel and public transport. Eliminate GST ....
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:01pm
    How about you stay stum if you can't participate intelligently in a debate? There's nothing smart about your dumb comments. It just reflects an inability to think and a blind acceptance of idiotic right wing propaganda - possibly because the right-wing approach to feeding greed benefits you. Some of us are actually concerned with what's good for the nation.
    *Loloften*
    25th Apr 2018
    11:56pm
    Just read many below conflicting posts....& there IS A SIMPLE ANSWER to paying off our deficit within possibly just 3yrs w/out robbing the "middle" class to support the less fortunate like the terminally ill & their Carers/Age & Disability pensioners with bug*er all savings due to unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. IT is....wait for it.....shut down all Federal & State Politicians' dining rooms which we (yes, everyone including all on any Govn'mt benefits who pay taxes on almost everything they buy/use/need including some foods/petrol/utilities/tech/home & often old car maintenance etc etc on meagre allowances - Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave) taxpayers fund thanks to LNP. I know for a fact, as suspect u all do too, that Pollies enjoy daily expensive lunches/dinners & wash 'em down with even more expensive drinks like $100+/700ml bottles of Laphroaig Whisky, Dom Perignon Champers (or similarly expensive wines) thx to us all. We would also need THEM to no longer "sponge" off us when "retire" on their overly generous pensions. I'm a "swinging" voter, have been for very many yrs...not voted for any Political Party, thoroughly research all the Independents before choosing a couple who have both rational economic ideas & an understanding of community needs even tho' realise that most often my vote will go to either to LNP or ALP - "preferences" should be abolished.
    Misty
    26th Apr 2018
    9:56am
    Totally agree.
    GregE
    26th Apr 2018
    12:21pm
    We have lost much of our manufacturing ability due to the high cost of doing business in Australia which includes high taxes and high power cost along with the proliferation of regulation. The USA under the Trump administration appears to be showing that reduced corporate taxes is helping to reduce the unemployment rate and make them less dependent on Chinese imports, time will tell if the benefits will continue into the future but I think we're currently heading the wrong way if we want a better lifestyle down the track.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:10pm
    Agree Greg
    Unfortunately the lefties can't think outside their "tax and spend" box
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:15pm
    And righties can't think outside their Robyn Hood in reverse greed mentality of take from the worker to load the coffers of the rich, and don't dare tax the silver spooners.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2018
    12:27am
    Raphael and Greg you cannot compare our corporate tax with that of other countries, they are so differently structured it is like comparing apples with oranges, what works in other countries does not necessarily mean it will work here.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    8:49am
    Reductions didn't work in other countries. In the UK, the reduction was a total disaster. In the US, it drove increased inequity and poverty. Our rate is already very low by world standards. It just appears higher because of the way taxes are structured.
    GregE
    27th Apr 2018
    10:57am
    @Misty, agreed we have different tax structures than other companies, and @OnlyGenuineRainey I understood that the US now has very low unemployment rates in the wake of the Trump election - does that correlate with "increased poverty"?. It is also possible that our relatively low population and therefore small domestic market has an impact on the shrinking industrial base we have here, its just that before the free trade agreements gave the globalists control over what we pay for products (even those still produced in Australia such as farm produce) and the fewer rules and regulations made this country a place where there was still optimism and individualism or perhaps I'm just looking back at the 70s with rose coloured glasses! I would like to see home grown industry encouraged before it is too late and largely disappears and preferably put the brakes on multinational ownership of Australian assets (including the Port of Darwin leased to the Chinese!). Just my 2 cents worth.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2018
    11:44am
    I agree with what you have just commented here GregE, I also hope that Alinta, who are a Chinese owned company, does not take over the Liddell Power Plant which is something the govt would like, all our Telecommunication, Power and Transport and Ports should stay in Australian hands not foreign ones.
    Anonymous
    28th Apr 2018
    8:46am
    Hi Greg. I agree with you comments, but can I just say that yes - reduced unemployment in the US does correlate with increased poverty because wages are so low. People with full time jobs in Walmart are existing on food stamps. In restaurants and hotels, workers rely on decent tips to survive. Some do very well, but in the low-priced establishments and poorer areas, they can work full-time for next to nothing. I fear that is the direction Australia is headed.

    I actually see both parties engaged in a social engineering exercise to reduce the working class back to peasant status - restoring the feudal social structure. I hope I'm wrong, but if you think it through, the rich have lost their status and their lifestyle over the past two centuries. They no longer have a house full of servants waiting on them.

    If either party really wanted to fix the cost of retirement, for example, it's really simple. Change superannuation tax concessions to 15% lower than the individual's tax rate, and make it a refund for those on very low tax rates so everyone benefits fairly instead of just the high income earners. Introduced a fair tax on retirement income over a generous threshold. Abolish means tests. Everyone would have an incentive to save for retirement and over time the pension could potentially reduce because everyone would have a reasonable amount of superannuation.

    As it is, BOTH parties are driving the cost of retirement UP, on purpose and knowingly, by ensuring saving for retirement delivers no benefit unless you can become very, very rich. The fact that both parties are supporting the same negative approach to retirement funding convinces me that both parties are engaged in the same social engineering exercise. And by driving the cost of retirement UP, they can ensure the younger members of the working and middle class become progressively poorer. Reducing company tax also assists, and Labor's opposition to that is pathetically weak - really only a token resistance, as it has been to many other LNP measures that progress us towards a feudal class system.

    Both parties have also driven increased debt, increased foreign ownership, and excessive immigration. Labor has only offered token opposition to many LNP policies that progress social engineering - such as the change to the assets test, for example. And now they are putting forward a social engineering policy of their own - imposing a 30% tax on struggling self-funded retirees, which will grind a whole group of middle-class citizens down to reliance on welfare. Again, leaves the rich untouched, makes token appeal to the poor, and bashes those who might obstruct and oppose progression to a feudal class system.

    Labor structures its policies to APPEAR appealing to the poor and those who support a welfare state, but in doing so it supports the LNP's objective, because everyone with a brain knows Labor's policies can never work in the real world, so they rarely attract enough support to install a Labor government, or even to have a strong Labor Opposition. When they do govern, Labor's policies drive increased debt, playing into the hands of the LNP. And they maintain the LNP class restructure endeavour with policies that cripple the middle and upper working classes but PRETEND to be oriented to improving the lot of the poor. (They never actually do, because they aren't practical!). Their franking credit rubbish is a classic example.

    Sorry, but I DO believe in conspiracy. And I believe we are witnessing an enormous one right now - and not just in Australia. Trump got into power on a lot of lies, promising to restore the prosperity of the middle class. He's doing the exact opposite!
    Frank of Brizzie
    27th Apr 2018
    10:32am
    Why add to the unfairness? First thing before even thinking about a Tax cut is to have Companies pay their FAIR tax before syphoning it of to a Tax haven. Government would have more money to finance important schemes.
    Adrianus
    30th Apr 2018
    8:02am
    Important schemes??
    You mean such as 'cash for clunkers, pink batts, solar panels, building immigration detention centres, set top box, empty school halls etc etc etc.
    If we have responsible fiscal policy coupled with lower taxes, we've just removed a couple of big reasons for the dollars invested in tax minimisation.
    Misty
    1st May 2018
    10:25am
    Somwhere along the line things have to be worked out when it comes to customers and shareholders, when I was growing up there was no such thing as mum and dad shareholders now every 2nd person has shares including me, wether it is in our super or we buy them ourselves.
    We have to realise thatwe need our shares to do well but without customers no business can function and these days with big business especially the bottom line seems to be all about the shareholders.