26th Mar 2018
How will corporate tax cuts affect your Age Pension?
How will corporate tax cuts affect your Age Pension?

Australian welfare groups and peak bodies have banded together to protest the Government’s proposed corporate tax cuts, saying they are “unconscionable” in the face of nationwide poverty.

A letter sent to all Senate crossbenchers on the weekend from groups such as Anglicare, Oxfam Australia, the Salvation Army and the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) opposed the corporate tax cut from 30 per cent to 25 per cent.

The Government aims to reduce the tax rate for companies with a turnover of more than $50 million. Welfare groups are concerned that if these cuts pass, more will be on the way at the expense of welfare payments, social services and pensions.

“We are concerned that already disadvantaged Australians may pay more for health, education and community services,” the letter states.

“We believe that a company tax cut is a mistake while almost three million people live in poverty.

“It is unconscionable to pursue company tax cuts while refusing to raise the rate of Newstart and other allowances.”

ACOSS Chief Cassandra Goldie added: “If the company tax cuts are passed, and personal tax cuts are also given, it is inevitable that social security will be cut further, and we’ll all have to pay more or wait longer for essential services such as doctors’ visits, hospitals, aged care and education."

“Genuine tax reform would close shelters and loopholes in the tax system which high income-earners and many companies have taken advantage of for years to minimise tax.

“We have a choice. We can pay more for services like hospital care, aged care and home care and continue to tolerate high levels of poverty and  homelessness, or close the revenue gap by making sure everyone pays their fair share – including the many companies and wealthy individuals who take advantage of tax avoidance mechanisms.”

The Government has different ideas, claiming the tax cuts would make businesses more profitable, meaning they would pay more tax, create more jobs and increase wages.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said if the tax cuts were not passed in full, Australia would lose investment and jobs, more people would become unemployed and wages would drop over time.

“Less profitable businesses would also pay less tax over time, meaning less revenue available to fund the important and necessary services of government including and in particular in health, education and welfare," said Mr Cormann.

Labor and the Greens oppose the tax. The Government needs nine of 11 crossbenchers to back its proposed cuts. It already has One Nation in its corner, as well as Australian Conservatives' Cory Bernardi, Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, and independents Fraser Anning and Steve Martin.

What do you think of corporate tax cuts? Are they the answer? Do you fear that social services will foot the bill for the reduced tax money? Or will big business make good on the Government’s claims that it will inject funds back into the economy and solve all our economic problems?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    10:17am
    I am strongly opposed to the tax cuts for the simple reason that the government itself has admitted that they will NOT generate economic growth.
    Goldman Sachs found that if companies distributed the value of the tax cut as profits or dividends to investors then 60% of the benefit would flow to offshore investors, 10% to domestic investors and around 30% to the Australian economy.
    All economists agree that the benefit of the tax cuts will be very small, yet the cost is horrendous, and with huge cuts happening everywhere else, we can't afford it.
    Companies are already dodging their tax obligations, with many huge corporations paying NIL. How can cutting taxes of $0 benefit them, other than to possibly save a few dollars in fees to clever accountants?
    What we need to do is address the tax loopholes and increase overall tax revenue from the wealthy. Stop this nonsense hacking away at the incomes of struggling self-funded retirees who are already contributing some $30-40K a year to the taxman (but getting no credit for it!) and tax FAIRLY.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    10:18am
    And BTW. Hansen hasn't yet made up her mind. She said she was incorrectly quoted.
    mogo51
    26th Mar 2018
    11:25am
    Like you, I find it difficult to arrive at a sensible conclusion to the cutting of company tax. As you allude to, many of these large companies pay little or no company tax at the current time - so why cut what they are not paying.
    When will we get a Government that will address the problem, levy a flat tax rate for large companies, then retrospective down the chain, then the country will get a fair share of the wealth being generated by these large conglomerations. Raise the upper tax rate or better still, apply a flat tax rate, with a higher rate for the rich. No income tax returns, no tax deductions - KISS principle, less fat cats needed to oversee the system!!!
    More money for pensions and other social services.
    fred
    26th Mar 2018
    11:44am
    Absolutely right , the only winners are the CEO's , overseas investors and high endersin lear jets etc who will splash the extra cash on imported luxury cars , Yachts , overseas business deduction trips
    No trickle down effect at all , just more trickle in their back pockets . How naive are these LNP sheep thinkers and Malcolms yes men , The Business Council of Australia never had Tony Abott's ear but gave their support to Malcolm to stab him in the back . No one believes the BCA letter saying their members will pass it on
    World Prophet
    26th Mar 2018
    12:57pm
    The main reason for the company tax cuts is to stop companies from going offshore to more favourable tax environments. Yes, I agree with those who argue that the loopholes that companies can take advantage of to pay little or no tax should be closed. I'd even go as far as to say that deliberate tax avoidance should result in jail sentences, since fines are paid by the companies and don't really impact those who permit this to occur. However, unless the local environment is competitive with other environments, we'll be left with only those businesses that absolutely have to be here, instead of attracting businesses that will bring in earnings from other places. Best no to cut off one's nose to spite one's face?
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    1:42pm
    @WorldProphet, "The main reason for the company tax cuts is to stop companies from going offshore to more favourable tax environments." This statement is more complicated than the misinformation touted by the government. Yes, the headline rate is different however you need to look at the overall taxation environment and you will find Australia's effective corporate tax rate is well under 20%, for those companies that pay tax in this country. Consider whether a tax rate of 25% would entice companies away from countries like Ireland and Singapore. How likely is it to make companies that organise their affairs so they pay little or no tax in Australia to suddenly decide otherwise. All is not what it seems.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    1:55pm
    Hanson has already made up her mind and so has Hinch.
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    2:39pm
    I agree.
    George
    27th Mar 2018
    3:55pm
    OGR, your comments are absolutely supported, except the bit about Hanson / One Nation - she is clearly trying to do a deal with the Liberals (asking for some weak / pathetic benefits, such as some apprenticeships, compared to the $65 Billion benefits for business).

    The only way any such tax cut cuts can be permitted is if:
    a. All Businesses MUST pay a MINIMUM TAX of 20% without any Deductions, or say 25% with ONLY LOCAL LABOUR, MATERIALS or INTEREST deductions). Note: In USA, the 21% rate Trump has got passed does not include State Taxes, and they also have a Minimum Tax system.
    b. We get Universal Pension for all Individuals at Age 65, subject only to 15 years Residence, with NO Assets, Income, Partner or any other moronic test (ideally also scrapping all special pensions for politicians).
    George
    27th Mar 2018
    3:56pm
    All in Qld MUST write to Pauline immediately to STOP THIS Business Tax cuts, and provide the above suggestions which I think all might agree.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th Mar 2018
    8:19am
    Did that, George. I was out last night and came home tired but I think I heard the company tax cuts have been scrapped?
    George
    28th Mar 2018
    12:21pm
    Great, OGR, hope many others did that too - Pauline DID cave in.

    Also Victorians need to put pressure on Derryn Hinch - he is capable of standing up if he believes in something.

    Not scrapped, as the rich have too much to gain, merely postponed till after Easter - so all MUST keep the pressure on!
    Janus
    26th Mar 2018
    10:18am
    I do not believe that corporations will pay more to employees (at the low end of the scale), if they increase profits due to lower taxes. Many pay very little tax now.

    Retirees who hold shares in larger corporations might do OK as the companies will certainly increase dividends, rather than pay more to employees. Mad if they don't!

    I am not surprised at this policy, as Liberal ideology is to reduce taxes, so that they can reduce services, as well as reduce welfare. That is the free enterprise approach - you get what you pay for. The majority voted for them, so suck it up. I'm surprised we don't have to pay for police attendances at crimes, with this lot.

    Pity the people who through bad luck or bad circumstances or even bad genes, do not have the capacity to pay for necessary services. It looks to me like a policy of "Hurry up and die!!"

    Policies of greed, vs policies of compassion. Get used to it. Labor is only marginally better, and the Greens haven't a clue. One Nation has no policy platform apart from anarchy, and there are no others of significance.

    On a brighter note, er....I can't think of anything good right now....
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Mar 2018
    10:25am
    Janus - since you brought political issues up: why not abolish preferential voting, make it first past the post and to top it all make
    voting voluntary. Not many countries in the world left with compulsory voting. It certainly would free up the Senate for a start.
    Janus
    26th Mar 2018
    10:59am
    Voluntary voting?? That would get about 10% of older, thinking, rabid, or bribed Australians out of bed on voting day, and result in a biased result that leads into corruption, voter intimidation and vote rigging.

    Even though there is a fine for not voting, about 5% don't vote. Don't vote, don't care, don't have a say - typical Australian "she'll be right mate!" approach. We are a lazy nation. I love it.

    "Free up the Senate"?? They are free to vote now, and we are all free to have a house of review, unless you would actually like to have a government that has no review, restriction, control or scrutiny. Sounds to me like you actually TRUST our governments.

    Sounds like a plan...might think a bit more on it though.
    FrankC
    26th Mar 2018
    1:32pm
    Cowboy Jim, I agree with you 100%. This preferences nonsense is so wrong, I know this from experience in Tassie. And compulsory voting, yeah --very democratic !!! As is being fined for not voting ! And they have the nerve to say we follow the Westminster system, what a blatant lie.
    Do away with preferences and compulsory voting.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    4:43pm
    Voting is not compulsory.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:51pm
    Tell that to the Electoral Commission when they are sending out fine notices by the thousands. Of course it's compulsory. No wonder you support tax cuts. You haven't a clue about anything.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    6:26pm
    I never vote and I never get a fine either. Yes I am on the electoral roll.
    Sundays
    26th Mar 2018
    8:13pm
    My mother was dying in hospital and she still got a fine. I rang the AEC and they waived it, so not sure why you are exempt
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:39pm
    I've been threatened with fines 5 times - once when ill in hospital and three times when out of the state or country. The 5th time I had a one-month old baby and my partner had been called to an emergency so I waited for his return to go to the polling booth rather than take the children out in a wild storm. I reached the booth a full 10 minutes before closing time, but they shut the door in my face because the workers wanted to get home before the storm worsened. The excuses were all accepted, but they were certainly required.

    Sorry, OG, but once again it's patently obvious you are telling huge porkies. Voting IS compulsory in Australia, and every Australian citizen knows it.
    HS
    26th Mar 2018
    8:51pm
    OG lost his marbles in addition to a lot of money he will lose in way of AEC fines. Maybe, OG can blame it on poor mental health?
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    9:37pm
    All I do is turn up or have someone turn up and cross my name off and put the blank paper in the ballet box. Done so for decades now.

    I got please explain for having my name crossed off at 3 polling places once but had voted early myself as I was overseas on polling day.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2018
    10:44pm
    I am fed up with these bleeding hearts from ACOSS and the like. Go to a place like Mildura, where there is plenty of seasonal work, and look who is doing it - back packers, while the local Centrelink office is full of fit young Aussies waiting on their Newstart approvals. This country needs a collective enema, and the do-gooders need a reality check. How do we compete with a company tax rate higher than all other comparable economies? Get real - even a three year old should know the answer to such a basic question!
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    7:08am
    Big Al that can look quite deceptive. A family member volunteered to fix up the marketing for a winery and gin producer in the Swan Valley WA.
    All the seasonal workers were 415 visa holders on holiday putting in the 88 days so they could stay longer here and working for bed and board.

    I'm sure some of our kids would love a working holiday but unfortunately they are either working already or Centrelink won't pay them if they go off to WA to work for accomodation only for a month or two.

    While employers can get away with not paying wages they will.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    7:11am
    I agree with your distain of ACOSS though. Most of the budget cuts that affected part pensions was caused by ACOSS wanting to slam savers and defined benefit pensioners.
    They do more harm than good in my opinion.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:15am
    Having walked in the shoes of the unemployed for a time, I can sympathize with many of them. Of course every society has a small percentage of lazy layabouts who won't work. But the system makes it very hard for people who genuinely WANT work and struggle to find it. Firstly, who on Newstart can afford to travel looking for work - especially if they have a family? You find the money to go somewhere for an interview and get knocked back, you starve for a fortnight! You get a casual job for a short time, you lose so much of your benefit that you are worse off than if your didn't take it. You take an unsatisfactory job that you can't continue for long due to health issues or whatever and you are locked in during business hours and can't look for anything more suitable.

    Employers take advantage of the unemployed, breaking workplace health and safety laws and underpaying, and you can't report them because you are too scared their influence in the area will close doors for you everywhere. They are always believed over you. One I worked for broke every law in the book and the boss lady sat on the veranda sipping drinks and abusing employees. Nobody EVER investigated the frequent injuries among the poor casual workers who were sent to work there because they'd been unemployed for too long.
    Job agencies are instructed to view claims of physical health issues restricting capacity to do certain types of work as ''an excuse'', and to ignore issues of mental unsuitability.
    Then there's the depression to cope with - that awful feeling of hopelessness, that no doubt comes across in an interview as disinterest when actually it's total despair.
    I worked for 12 years in a job that put my life in grave danger every single day and I earned $16 a week more than the dole - $16 that was more than consumed in costs of travel to and from work, work clothing, union dues, and other incidental costs. I would have been better off financially on unemployment benefits. Gee, I wonder why people don't want to take a totally unsatisfactory job!

    Eventually, I started a small home-based business and didn't declare what I was doing. When the authorities caught up with me, after 6 months, I found a loophole in the legislation that allowed me to continue. I made a lot of people very angry and the loophole was closed, but it took 18 months, by which time I was earning enough to get by. I was never unemployed again. I taught myself new job skills on the job that I would never have been able to learn when unemployed, because people shunned me when I didn't have a job. When I was struggling in a little business, making no money, everyone wanted to help.

    It's so easy to be judgmental - and so hard to understand when you haven't been there and done that. Sure, lots of people have become unemployed and succeeded in finding work. Lots have taken unsatisfactory work and climbed up successfully - like a certain politician who boasts. But you have to examine the person's background, life experience and resulting psyche, social circle, family situation, and a lot of other factors most of us have no clue about before you can appreciate their capacity and struggle.

    Bottom line - our system fails those who struggle to find work. It's a disaster! And none of those claiming to have answers have a clue why it's failing or how to fix it, because they have no notion of what it feels like to have no hope of escaping the trap except by cheating. But it's really, really easy for judgmental people to condemn others based on popular lies.
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:37am
    That's why I now stay home as driving puts my life in grave danger too.

    OGR the idea is to learn the rules and play the game and not get caught.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    31st Mar 2018
    3:10pm
    One of my relatives works in a big factory in Brisbane that employees hundreds of people. Most of the workers are Koreans or Kiwis. Apparently they only employ Australians in roles where they can't get workers from overseas so there are very few Australians employed in their factories.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    10:19am
    Optimistic tax models put the average Australian at being 0.1% better off under the proposed company tax cuts. And the good news is they'll only have to wait 25 years for that tiny benefit to appear! Economist John Quiggin reports.
    Wow! 0.1% in 25 years time! That's not great value for the billions it will cost!
    fred
    26th Mar 2018
    11:56am
    yes , we do pay tax on dividends and will lose 30 % of our Dividend income if Shorten gets in . He knows how it works to benefit the Union based Super funds and will exempt them from cancelling the excess rebate . Malcolm Turnbull is a disgrace no better than Shorten . Why is everyone silent on his Malcolms Cayman Island Tax haven ! he doesnt give a sh*t and will go along with a similar tax policy like Shortens tax grab to fund the black hole left after he gives tax cuts to huge oversea companies and shareholders The LNP are dumb
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    1:45pm
    @OGR, we agree. See it is possible :)
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    1:56pm
    Australia will collect more tax at 25% rate than the 30% rate and heaps more tax when they lower it to 15%.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2018
    2:36pm
    OG is right
    OGR is wrong
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:40pm
    OG is WRONG. We have a very favourable tax environment in Australia - far more favourable than the US AFTER their tax cuts, and far more favourable than many nations that have a nominally higher rate.
    Anyway, the argument is that tax cuts will flow on to wage rises. If record profits don't, why would tax cuts? It's a nonsense!

    And businesses don't come here for the tax rate. They come here for the market opportunity. If they don't want to pay taxes, good riddance. Someone else will fill the opportunity. Where there is a market, somebody will service it.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    4:47pm
    Actually that is the point there is not enough profit in this country compared to elsewhere in the world so we are seen as a great place to dump stuff that the rest of the world doesn't want. I certainly don't want those companies coming here with their rubbish.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    5:17pm
    What rot, OG. That's just nonsense.

    As pointed out above, reduced taxes and higher company profits will mean LESS jobs as more technology is employed to replace labour. Less jobs means less tax revenue, more welfare, less spending, and that sets off a downward spiral. Far better to increase wages and pensions and generate spending that will stimulate more demand and therefore growth.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    6:28pm
    OGR that all falls down when people don't have enough money to pay for the goods that technology produces.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:33pm
    Which is precisely why this stupid LNP will crash the economy with their idiotic handouts, while continually slashing the incomes of all consumers to pay for their stupidity.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:35pm
    OG, it boggles the mind how you can continue to argue until you eventually come full circle and prove your own argument 100% WRONG. You've just confirmed that company tax cuts will be a disaster. They will result in more robots producing goods nobody can afford to pay because everyone's income will be cut to fund the damaging tax cuts.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    9:42pm
    No company tax cuts are an awesome move. If everyone was like me and lived a minimalist lifestyle most companies would have shut up shop long ago.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    7:20am
    There is plenty of money. You only have to visit the Shopping Centres to see the consumption going on and even the poor are covered in tattoos that indicate they have plenty of money for discretionary spending.

    Let's do the tax cuts and see what happens.

    We might get price drops which would be great.

    I'm with OG right now and the minimalistic lifestyle.
    It's very stress free.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:52am
    There is money in the hands of some. We also have double the rate of aged poverty of any other nation in the developed world. The problem is inequality, and inequality will increase with company tax cuts, because all benefit flows to the more affluent. Inequality leads, inevitably, to economic stagnation, and social unrest. We've seen it in the US. We've seen it in the UK. It's coming to Australia very soon, especially if the LNP has it's way on this issue.
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:39am
    Of course people think they are in poverty as they want the taxpayer to not only pay for the basics of life but all the luxuries as well. That's where the inequity comes in.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    10:30am
    But if Shorten has his way, it won't be pensioners suffering. It will be people who are struggling to be self-funded and will be forced onto them pension with massive cuts to their income. He does not seem to understand that these people DO pay tax. They contribute some $30-40K a year to the taxman by being self-funded, and since it's getting too hard for them, many will decide to reduce their assets and claim a pension rather than persist in the face of this constant unfair attack. Those who continue to be self-funded will cut their expenditure heavily, which means reduced profits, more job losses and reduced tax revenue, and continues in a vicious cycle as flow-on effects are felt.
    Sadly, Janus is right. Companies won't increase wages. They have enjoyed record profit growth over the past year or two, and wage increases were at record lows. There is ample proof that increased profits DO NOT flow on to workers, so why does the government persist with the untruthful argument.
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    1:51pm
    There is no motivation for companies to increase wages in the absence of skill shortage or regulation. The kicker is the higher wages go the more cost effective replacing workers with technology becomes. The axiom about being careful what you wish for is worth keeping in mind.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    5:14pm
    Yes, Farside. Companies will replace workers with technology wherever they can, and tax cuts will enable to them to do more of that. More job losses. Less jobs means less spending means less jobs and tax means less jobs. Far better to spend on increasing wages and pensions so spending increases and drives growth, but that would be too sensible, I guess.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    27th Mar 2018
    8:07am
    If people can't live on the OAP today then they are living well beyond their means. It is for the basics of life not luxuries as well.

    Increased wages only leads to increased price due to their inflationary effect on the economy. We have less jobs because we have less consumption for goods and services.

    Companies replaces workers with technology because it simply does a better job and in some cases may be a bit cheaper. That said I loathe those automated phone systems but they have been proved to do the job better than a person does.

    All the jobs that need doing people don't want to do today. It us very easy to get a cleaning or gardening job but it seems they are just too harder work for people today.

    There is plenty of money around. I went shopping yesterday as I thought it would be quiet. It seemed busier than usual to me. Onre tome shops were only busy on oay day now it is every day.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:35pm
    Says the lying cheating rorter who has an income of around twice the pension and a multi-million dollar house, and grandkids who owe him and will no doubt shell out for anything he needs and can't afford.

    Put a sock in it, cheat. You have no idea about hardship.
    Old Geezer
    29th Mar 2018
    10:51am
    I am actually thinking of doing the same as BigBear. I buy a house worth millions and then we both collect the single rate OAP as it only gives us more money but higher asset limits as well.
    GrayComputing
    26th Mar 2018
    10:45am
    A pension is not welfare.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    For your retirement do you really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?
    Do some of you like being part of the abuse of the elderly? If so get your head examined for saw dust.
    Call your MP (yes the very same one who lets this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense) and tell them they will lose their job unless all asset tests for a pension are dropped
    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
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Call your MP (yes the very same one who lets this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense) and tell them they will lose their job unless all asset tests for a pension are dropped
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Mar 2018
    11:53am
    You are right, GrayComputing, as far as cost savings are concerned but what to do about all these public servants operating C/Link presently? Would that not up the unemployment rate? So all the savings would be spent on dole benefits and we would be back to Square One.
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    1:55pm
    @GrayComputing, don't hold your breath waiting for changes to the assets test even if it is in caps, colour and repeated. Assets test is not going away any time soon and the pension will be treated as welfare in the absence of universal basic income.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    27th Mar 2018
    8:13am
    OAP is welfare and I am proud to be on welfare. The asset test is certainly not going away if anything it will be tightened further. I am so grateful I was astute enough to spend and dispose of my wealth as those who kept it are now far worse off than me. I wish everyone would do what I have done so they reap the benefits of planning for retirement. Let's hope Life Choices teach this in their boot camp.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:35am
    Yes BigBear, we know BigBear the mutli-millionaire is very happy cheating the system to steal from the taxpayer, and very well off drawing more income from a combination of pension and investments than most SFRs can achieve.

    Are we supposed to applaud you for that? Frankly, I think you are the lowest of the low - thoroughly DISGUSTING.

    And now you hope everyone who is fortunate is taught how to wreck the system so there is nothing for the genuinely needy. What SCUM!
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:47am
    OGR why don't you just bite the bullet and learn the rules and play the game instead of whinging about those who benefit by doing so?

    I too wish more people planned their retirement like VeryCaringBigBear did and what he has done is nothing more than playing the game by the rules to his benefit. Much better than doing nothing and just whinging about others winning the OAP game.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:38pm
    Because if everyone does it, OG, the nation is stuffed. I know what real hardship is, and I don't want to see it inflicted on people. But I guess it's time to give up. Those who will suffer most are their own worst enemies - greedy, selfish, consumed with envy, and just plain STUPID.
    On the Ball
    26th Mar 2018
    10:54am
    ANY company worth its salt hires and fires staff depending on the profit margin that employee will bring to the company.
    A decision is made to hire IF that employee can contribute to the bottom line, more than it costs TO EMPLOY THEM.
    Very simple.
    Reducing tax will increase profits - no argument there. But that is not an incentive to employ more staff. Yes, a company can afford to employ more people but that will decrease the bottom line, so why would they?
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    1:56pm
    agreed. Wish more of the media put this question to the politicians.
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    2:37pm
    Agreed the idea that companies will employee people they don't need because they have more money is a joke. Yet people believe it.
    Sundays
    26th Mar 2018
    8:22pm
    Even if they need them, they would prefer the current employees work unpaid overtime. Look at the profits the banks are making, yet they have been shedding staff for years.
    almost a grey hair
    26th Mar 2018
    10:56am
    This entire current liberal government has about as much integrity as the entire Australian cricket team. How long do we have to wait for an election or worse, maybe Abbot will be back.
    mogo51
    26th Mar 2018
    11:31am
    Oh no, I hope not. Whilst what we have is 'on the nose', what the alternative is, frightens the c..p out of me.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    11:47am
    The corporate tax rate should be cut to 15% to make us more competitive with the rest of the world. We would get a lot more tax collected at 15% than we do at 30% as it would not be worth it for companies to shift profits overseas.

    Great move but it needs to be cut further to 15%.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Mar 2018
    12:02pm
    Thought about that when seeing a 5-pack of noodles made in Singapore at the supermarket for $1. Pack says 100% Australian wheat. Singapore has similar wages to ours but their corporate tax is about half. So how can we be competitive with a rate of 30%? Do we want to send all our companies offshore as well and have our groceries offered by offshore supermarkets like Aldi (no share holders, family-owned and taxed in Germany)?
    Theo1943
    26th Mar 2018
    12:13pm
    Maybe we should abolish corporate tax altogether. Would we then not collect even more tax?
    If the company tax rate was 1%, they would still figure out how to avoid paying OG.
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    2:05pm
    @Cowboy, Aldi not the best example for your proposition; according to the ATO Aldi Foods pays a similar level of tax as Wesfarmers and Woolworths. Aldi is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hofer KG (Austria).
    Farside
    26th Mar 2018
    2:08pm
    OG, nothing wrong with cutting the headline rate to 15% so long as reform the rest of the tax act so the effective tax rate and the headline rate were in sync. I'm sure you are aware a low rate alone is not the the only reason companies organise their affairs in a particular way.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    3:22pm
    Companies pay little tax because it is cheaper to pay expensive tax accountants to show them how to pay little of no tax. At some point those tax experts will cost more than the tax saved which will mean an actual loss. No wants to have an actual loss.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:49pm
    Theo1943 makes sense! Of course companies and the rich will avoid tax no matter what the rate. And our REAL company rate is about 17% now - much LOWER than most other developed countries.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    7:41am
    Companies will do business here as long as consumers either can afford the prices or will borrow to consume. When that stops they will be gone in a flash. Transfer pricing is a strategy used regardless of the tax rates.

    Companies will always maximise profit anyway they can and pack up shop when the money runs out.

    We'd better hope it doesn't because we really don't make anything much anymore and if those ships stop coming the shelves will be very very empty. Communism isn't the only ideology that can do that. Capitalism in a death spiral is pretty nasty and the next time comes with current globalisation features to add to the misery.
    HS
    26th Mar 2018
    12:06pm
    Show the evidence that the outcome of “tax cuts would pay more tax, create more jobs and increase wages and that if the tax cuts were not passed in full, Australia would lose investment and jobs, more people would become unemployed and wages would drop over time”.

    Come on, prove it with numerical models, not words !
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    1:57pm
    The money has to go somewhere even it is commission for a salesman to sell someone a roller.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:46pm
    Where did the record profits go then? Straight into the bank accounts of senior executives and directors, as will any tax cut.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    6:29pm
    No the record profits have been used to retire debt in companies and make their bottom line look better.
    HS
    26th Mar 2018
    7:47pm
    "Record Profits" are after (1) Commission paid to salespeople (2) after payment of wages (3) after retirement of debts.(4) after corporate tax liability.
    Corporate Tax cuts, will not increase jobs, will not increase capitol expenditure in a very uncertain economy. The "clutching of the straws" hope, that they will , is an old fashion notion that expired some 30 years ago.
    If you increase the share of one economic sector in the realm of the economic pie, then another sector/s must suffer a downfall. That's micro-economic reality.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    9:43pm
    The money saved from tax cuts is not going to just evaporate into thin air as it has to go some where and anywhere will help our economy.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:47am
    It will go in the pockets of the filthy rich, just like in the UK. And a lot will end up in untaxed accounts in the Caymans, like MT's riches - which is why the LNP WANT to cut taxes. Their mates are the ones holding those bank accounts and greedy for more.

    26th Mar 2018
    12:10pm
    These idiots should shut the hell up and stop spreading lies
    How about we start taxing these useless outfits - parasites all of them
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    10:08pm
    Raphael I hope you're not talking about the salvos. When I was a young man the Salvos would come around asking for donations in the pub. Hard men a lot of them mostly construction and heavy industry workers but they all had a couple of bucks for the salvos. The Salvos do good work in the community. They may be wrong in your estimation but it will be with good intentions.
    KSS
    26th Mar 2018
    12:27pm
    Another article straight from the Mr Shorten scaremongering playbook!
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    2:29pm
    I'm against the tax cuts. The government keeps looking at our super and trys to reduce what little benefits we get yet they want to give big business a tax cut. Big business doesn't need one they hardly pay any tax as it is. Next they will have another budget emergency and increase the GST.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    8:02am
    Yes indeed Tib. That is the general plan. Apparently 65% of that cut will just flow overseas and hurt our balance of payments.

    The LNP are desperate to increase GST and put it onto food as well.

    They also want a general land tax and that is going to hurt all home owners.

    Corporations do not want to pay for services so anyone with any savings is going to be asked to stump up or we won't have welfare, health or schools except for those who can afford to pay for them.

    I'm not sure that social democracy is viable any longer. We seem closer to a Corporate State than ever thanks to the LNP governments over the past 40 years. Even the ALP have supported the build of Corporatism especially Hawke, Keating and the Rudd/Gillard combine.
    KEVINJ
    26th Mar 2018
    3:13pm
    on TOP of PG is a PIC of a TURNBULL 'FED Politician'. He 'can't Even think' he is ASSOCI with a SCOUNDREL - who desperately WANTED, to join FED LABOR,- Bt was REJECTED, by THOSE CROOKS.- Now, This "JOKER", on PG Top<- should BE Lining UP, to DISCREDIT FUDGE'S LINK with "S E R C O" Corp, -But N O, this creep at PG TOP, will pretend, "EVIL SERCO", - don'T EXIST..THEY Will BE READING THESE PGES &, - being a VERY Dangerous "CORP", they OWN Almost EVERY THING". MILLION S of Normal NICE People, R, WAITG, THEIR CHANCE, - to Take "S E R C O", "Down"..- REMemBeR, the NAME..-- THEY CONTROL 'EVERY--THING' - &, COWARD TURNBULL SACKED 1,200-, Handed OVER "CENTRE--LINK" CALL CenTre, T O, - T-H-E-M. -100 S OF Deep DETAILED UTUBE Videos R, ON-LINE.. When they "TEST" applicS, Into the "CORP", - they SEPARATE PPL, & take, the DUMBEST ApplicS - S O Can BE, M I S--TreaTeD.. IT IS ALL ON - LINE.. RE- "Center-LINK" CALLS, they put U on HOLD, for as long as it takes.. They R NOT Answerable To the FrustrateD PUBLIC. - ONLY TO FED " TURN- COAT ", "TURN BULL".. ReMemBER HE I S, ""O N L Y"", E X--'GOLDMAN SACHS' & NOTHING
    MORE.
    MICK
    26th Mar 2018
    4:02pm
    Only the mentally challenged and the party rusted ons will believe that a cut in the corporate tax rate is good for average Australians. But then the PM has been spruiking a lot of deceitful BS because an election is coming.
    Somebody has to pay for more money being doled out to the wealthy. Who? ALL OF US. Expect the round of theft from pensioners who are an easy target.
    I hope this current bunch of low life despots are voted out but never underestimate the ability of the right wing owned media to sell ice to the eskimos.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    4:05pm
    The tax cuts will work and there will be more money for welfare so you need not worry about any more cut backs on genuine pensioners.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2018
    4:40pm
    Correct OG - shame people like Mick will never understand this

    Some people just cannot be educated
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:45pm
    The other one plays Jingle Bells, OG. What a load of crock! Record profits, and yet wages are stagnant and companies are screaming for tax cuts to give them more.
    Not one single leading economist supports the theory that tax cuts will stimulate wage increases, and neither Mal nor Scotty can produce any statistical evidence, but just claim it's ''common sense''. The common sense is that they are greedy and inept.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    4:49pm
    Jingle Bells is a very jolly song and it certainly doesn't match your pessimism at all. I'm happy with Jingle Bells.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:50pm
    That's because you are content to ride in a sleigh and laugh while the rest of the world goes to hell. You simply don't care. Too selfish.
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    4:53pm
    Mick I agree.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2018
    4:56pm
    Rainey - I suggest you read nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman on the subject of tax cuts
    Not a 2 bit leftie like Saul Eslake
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    5:14pm
    Yes I am content to ride the sleigh as I know that something is being done to fix our big tax impost on companies especially small business who are doing it tough. It will give small businesses owners the ability to employ people so they can step back and maybe take a holiday themselves.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    5:19pm
    You are content because you know it won't hurt you, but it WILL do massive harm to the nation.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    5:25pm
    I see only positives for the nation myself as there will be more money circulating and the multiplier effect will do wonders with it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:19pm
    There will be more money in the pockets of greedy high-level company executives and directors - NOT circulating. They've already proved, with record profits, that they DO NOT circulate the extra cash.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:30pm
    The UK experience proves me correct. Big company tax cuts there made the UK a tax haven, and the result was a 20% increase in wealth of the richest 10%, 0 growth in GDP, 0 wage increases for average and low wage earners, and job losses at the low end. Company CEOs responded to survey questions saying the extra money was spent on high-end luxuries for senior execs and directors, and while they thought they probably SHOULD have spent it creating jobs, there was no need for more staff and with high unemployment, there was no need to increase pay rates to attract and retain staff.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    9:33pm
    We live in Australia a vastly different country to the UK.
    MICK
    27th Mar 2018
    2:58am
    OnlyGenuineRainey: you are spot on. Record profits have produce huge CEO salaries (surprise, surprise) whilst workers were put onto part time jobs. And then this government came after their paltry earnings and conditions.
    Tax cuts did not work in America. 'Trickle Down Economics' has been shown for the lie and the con it is. The result of the above is that rich Americans got mega rich, the working class got full time jobs paying less than $10 an hour and needed food stamps to even exist. And now the rich in the US are after the middle class for the same deal!

    I feel sorry for Raphael and OG. The difference between you and I is that I have never been of the mindset that the rich 'own it all', that 'they are special' and should be exempt from paying tax and that they can buy/own governments through the electoral donation process.

    Gentlemen, your position offends me. It is un-Australian. It is devoid of logic and of all human compassion. You should be ashamed to air such a position because it is ignorant at best and evil at worst.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    7:48am
    Have you noticed that neither OG nor Raphael can offer any substantiation for their argument, Mick? ''We live in a vastly different country from the UK'' and ''Fake news''. Gee, that would go down well in a debate! The only argument they can offer is parrot repletion of claims their greedy rich heroes make to justify their selfish grab for more for the rich.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    8:12am
    Raphael, Friedman style "supply side' economics has always ended up with a huge collapse in demand, huge debt levels, economic depression, revolutions and wars. Why do you thing this time it will be different?
    Theo1943
    27th Mar 2018
    1:22pm
    Raphael, Milton Friedman is the problem we have with the world economy today. The man should have been aborted. We need another Keynes.
    Seenitall
    26th Mar 2018
    4:17pm
    It's hard to believe that large companies are going to leave Australia en mass if the government is unable to deliver these proposed tax cuts when it must be well known in the corporate world that the effective company tax rate in Australia is already only about 17% and if many of the multinationals don't pay any tax at all there would seem to be nothing in it for them.
    The Liberal party unashamedly exists only for the top end of town and the rest of their MO is deceiving enough people who are not top end of town to vote for them. If the tax cuts go through there's enough time between now and the next election for many swinging voters to find that the promised trickle down to them is simply not going to happen and when they realize that billions of dollars of what should have been this country's legitimate tax revenue has flowed into the pockets of bank CEO's, overseas super funds etc they may cry "enough" and swing round and bite this dreadful government on the bum.
    Problem is would Labor do much better? They could make a start by modifying their franking credit, dividend imputation proposals so that people on genuinely low incomes, rather than those on low taxable incomes, aren't affected.
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    4:43pm
    Just another pessimist I see.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    4:49pm
    With good reason, when we have both a government and an opposition doing nothing but take from the working and middle class to hand to rich tax avoiders.
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    8:16am
    If Labor wins they will have to increase GST and bring in Land Tax or cut services. That is the plan. I actually hope the LNP win the next election and are faced with the consequences of the time bombs they are setting up.

    It looks like these tax cuts will go ahead so the consequences will be documented.
    Theo1943
    27th Mar 2018
    1:30pm
    Franking credits mean that there is effectively no tax on company dividends. The tax paid is refunded to the shareholder's SMSF.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:40pm
    As it SHOULD be if the taxpayer is below the tax threshold. Why should people be OVERTAXED just because they invest in shares, when other taxpayers are not overtaxed?
    Tib
    26th Mar 2018
    5:03pm
    I believe the US just gave a tax cut to big business now some people expect us to give a tax cut to big business to be competitive. So it's a race to the bottom with the only winners being big business and as usual the ordinary taxpayer and retiree will be stuck with the bill. Someone has to make up the tax shortfall , yep us as usual. I feel a budget emergency coming on , someone will have to make sacrifices...... Meaning us not them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    5:18pm
    But the US has a higher tax rate than we do even after the cuts. Their tax system is very complex and their stated rate is not the rate at all. Their real rate is much higher than ours, and compliance is much more difficult and costly too.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    5:54pm
    In a survey of companies, about one-third of firms had sufficient deductions and tax offsets to pay an effective tax rate of less than 25%. These firms were shedding 1.2% or 0.07% of jobs a year, depending on whether tax was measured as a share of taxable income or as a share of accounting profits.

    Those paying 25% or more tax grew their workforces by 2.1% or 1.9%.

    Funny, that! Funnier still that MT and ScoMo can't produce any refuting evidence but claim to be working on ''gut instinct'' and ''common sense''.
    ronnieb
    26th Mar 2018
    5:56pm
    There seems to be an awful lot of mis information floating around this dividend imputation issue. Firstly, you have to sort out those on full aged pensions (and under the legal investment capital limit of $300 and something thousand) who, if they are wise and prudent, will not have their entire wealth in shares but will spread it over capital appreciation and dividend share, and the rest will be in safe places like term deposits superannuation, etc . This bunch of people will probably be entitled to something less than $5,000 maximum per year in franking credits IF they submit a tax return. But the vast majority of these people are not earning anything like the minimum taxable income due to their "tax free "status so they should willingly give up claiming a franking credit, and that is with or without Bill Shortens scheme. In other words for this huge bunch of people there will be NO CHANGE to their net income situation.
    The rest of the retirees are either well off by enough cash to live a very nice lifestyle thank you but all i keep hearing is that they are whinging about losing a few thousand dollars a year. My question is, "what is the percentage of your total income is the so called franking credit 'loss' "? If its less than a couple of percent then what is everybody whinging about. Pay up and shut up, there are millions of people doing it tougher than you are !!
    Old Geezer
    26th Mar 2018
    6:25pm
    Worked my franking credits out and they are 34% of my income which is considerably more than a couple of percent.

    From what you are saying you have little idea of the impact of this on most retirees even those on the full OAP. Anyone on the full OAP would be mad not to be getting more than the deeming rate which means they have a lot of their money not sitting on deposit but in equities earning franking credits.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:16pm
    Ronnieb, I did some calculations for a friend that reveal that, as a self-funded retiree couple with a home and $900,000 in shares paying franked dividends, they would lose $23,500. Now, given that they are already effectively paying the taxman about $40,000 a year by not claiming a pension or concessions, that's a massive loss. It puts their effective tax total at $63,500.

    Interestingly, I compared them with a part (near full) pensioner couple with $320,000 in shares paying franked dividends. The latter would lose about $8500 a year, but would be $500 a year better off than the SFR, although costing the taxpayer over $30,000 a year after losing their franking credits.

    Should the unthinkable happen and returns fall to 6% per annum, the SFR couple would be earning just $34,300 a year, with no concessions, while the pensioner couple would be earning $46,900 - a whopping $12,600 MORE than their self-funded counterpart. Yet the SFR couple would still be effectively handing $55,600 to the taxpayer in a combination of franking credits on their dividends and the pension they forfeit, while the pensioner couple impose a cost on the nation.

    Sure, Mr & Mrs SFR can drain their capital to make up the difference. If you sacrificed lifestyle for decades to save an extra $580K that you hoped would pay for high quality aged care, home help in old age, and a lot of little luxuries in the winter of your life, would you be content to have to spend it for the sole benefit of the taxpayer, forfeiting all the gain you earned by effectively paying over 160% tax? Why not put it into an expensive house, or gift it to your children - rather than forfeit it to the taxman?

    Clearly, for once OG is correct. You have no idea of the impact of this change. It will do devastating harm to many pensioners, and it is likely to drive many SFRs to simply give up trying to avoid being a burden on the taxpayer and just divest assets and claim a pension. Indeed, even BEFORE it happens, just due to the cruel assets test change, financial advisers are telling people that unless they can save a lot over $1 million, they are better off limiting their assets to $500K (for a homeowner couple), as that's the ''sweet spot'' for retirees.

    Shorten risks crashing the pension system by this idiotic move, as well as hurting a lot of pensioners who rely heavily on this REFUND OF OVERPAID TAX to achieve a decent income.

    Worse, he risks driving investment away from Australian companies and into foreign corporations and/or property (making the housing crisis much worse).

    And then there's the impact of the huge spending reduction suffered by SFRs and pensioners who have shares. That will flow on to reduced business profits, reduced tax revenue, job losses...

    Has anyone asked BS to spell out exactly how much of his claimed savings will be LOST through higher pension costs and reduced spending, and through people shifting to other investments?
    Sundays
    26th Mar 2018
    8:31pm
    Ronnie, how can there be no change to the income of aged pensioners with shares. They don’t pay tax but are entitled to submit a Refund of Franking Credits Form to the ATO. Very easy to complete, and they get the Franking Credits back. Without this refund, of course there will be a change to pensioners income
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:43pm
    Sundays, RonnieB is making wild assumptions, with no understanding of the system and non concern for examining facts. Of course many pensioners will suffer huge losses. As for ''The rest of the retirees are either well off by enough cash to live a very nice lifestyle thank you but all i keep hearing is that they are whinging about losing a few thousand dollars a year.''' That's the rubbish lies being peddled by green-eyed monsters who have no idea of economics and can't think past ''he appears to have some money - take it off him and give it to me'' (True ALP mentality - the age of entitlement is here. Handouts must continue, but workers and savers must be beaten and bashed and CANNOT be allowed to enjoy benefit from their efforts.)
    Rae
    27th Mar 2018
    8:31am
    Ronnie as a single mum I worked two and three jobs to pay the mortgage, raise the kids and save and invest for retirement.

    I am now down around $26 000 because I get no government pension or discounts. I actually never got any support. Not even help with childcare fees.

    I think that is quite enough already to pay for others who wouldn't put a few dollars away every fortnight.

    Just because millions of people do it tougher doesn't mean I need to pay for them especially when the tougher could have been eliminated with a bit of self control and less leakage of money on unnecessary over consumption in a lot of cases.
    We should not have the "poor" here except for a very few unfortunates and our charity would look after them adequately.

    I saved so I could afford home help and medical in my final decade not so I could go without for an entire working life to hand over my money to those "less fortunates" who couldn't be bothered even considering tomorrow much less their dotage years.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:42am
    Likewise, Rae. And I'm heartily SICK of these selfish people who make wild assumptions that because someone has savings they are ''a rich whinger'; and their savings should be stolen and given to people who spent like drunken sailors, didn't work hard, and didn't plan for their future.

    I give to charity, and I pay taxes proudly, and unlike BigBear I have NEVER before considered manipulating to cheat the system and reduce the funds available to support the genuinely needy - of whom there are very few. But I'm now looking for every possible way to manipulate, because my grandson IS the needy, and I am being denied the right to leave my assets to him because selfish people have decided my savings belong to the taxpayer, not to me.

    If I gave up work, I would pay a very high price for putting money aside for dental care and eye surgery that I will need later in life, and for aged care and home help when I can't manage to look after both home and partner. I would be left with a very small income and forced to erode my capital every year so the government didn't have to gift me and my partner the $1 million or so it is handing out to every pensioner couple in this country over the term of their retirement.

    Why the hell should we who saved have to pay for the million dollar handout to people who didn't - many of whom had way more to save than we did?
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:42am
    Beats dealing with Centrelink OGR.
    Old Geezer
    29th Mar 2018
    10:47am
    So someone is now using Old Geezer's tag as well as the real OG. This should be interesting with all the comments.
    Eddy
    26th Mar 2018
    6:08pm
    If I gave any credence whatsoever to Sen Cormann's claims then I would be out in my backyard looking for fairies.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Mar 2018
    8:26pm
    I watched a documentary recently examining the effect of tax cuts in the UK, which made the UK one of the world's top tax havens, with among the lowest company tax rates in the world. There was NO increase in GDP or average wages. Wage stagnation was a major problem among lower-paid workers, and there were job losses at the lower end. However, the richest 10% added a whopping 20% per year to their wealth.

    Got that folks? 20% a year extra for the 10% richest. $0 for average and low paid workers. No increase in GDP. FEWER jobs.

    Asked how the company tax cut benefited their organization, 20 out of 20 corporate CEOs replied that their top executives and directors travelled to Europe to buy $100,000 watches and $850,000 cars, and the company sponsored lavish holidays in Mediterranean paradises for the top execs. Asked if they felt guilty about this, they all replied that ''yes, the money probably SHOULD have been used to create jobs, but the company didn't need more staff, and we were having no trouble attracting workers at current pay rates - as unemployment was high - so saw no cause to raise wages''.
    Anonymous
    27th Mar 2018
    12:49am
    Fake news
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    7:45am
    Actually, it wasn't Raphael. I verified the research and the presenter's credentials and political views. It was anything BUT fake. But rusted-on LNP supporters can't see past ''give more to the haves'', because typically they are among the ''haves'', and greed is unlimited.

    Common sense tell us company tax cuts won't help the economy. A good manager NEVER spends more than he has to on labour, so if there are plenty of people needing jobs (and there ARE, because despite falsification of unemployment data by ignoring those part-time and casuals desperate for more hours) they don't have to offer higher pay to attract employees. They will NEVER hire more people than they need. Need is governed by consumer demand, which is falling because affordability is reducing due to wage stagnation and welfare cuts. The only options for companies to spend more money are higher exec and director pay (a given - and very harmful to the economy); higher dividends (of which much flows overseas) and more technology to eliminate more jobs and create goods that nobody will be able to afford to buy because incomes are falling.

    I wonder how many BAD managers there are in Australia, who will actually spend the extra on labour? I'm betting NONE.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    7:45am
    Actually, it wasn't Raphael. I verified the research and the presenter's credentials and political views. It was anything BUT fake. But rusted-on LNP supporters can't see past ''give more to the haves'', because typically they are among the ''haves'', and greed is unlimited.

    Common sense tell us company tax cuts won't help the economy. A good manager NEVER spends more than he has to on labour, so if there are plenty of people needing jobs (and there ARE, because despite falsification of unemployment data by ignoring those part-time and casuals desperate for more hours) they don't have to offer higher pay to attract employees. They will NEVER hire more people than they need. Need is governed by consumer demand, which is falling because affordability is reducing due to wage stagnation and welfare cuts. The only options for companies to spend more money are higher exec and director pay (a given - and very harmful to the economy); higher dividends (of which much flows overseas) and more technology to eliminate more jobs and create goods that nobody will be able to afford to buy because incomes are falling.

    I wonder how many BAD managers there are in Australia, who will actually spend the extra on labour? I'm betting NONE.
    Anonymous
    27th Mar 2018
    7:53am
    Only an idiot would spend extra profits hiring more workers then they have to
    A smart businessman would use the additional capital to invest in organic growth or acquisitions or totally different investments
    This creates jobs and wealth
    You need to stop thinking like a peasant and more like an enterpreneur
    Anonymous
    27th Mar 2018
    7:55am
    Btw - your post is still fake news
    Have you read up or at least watched a Milton Friedman YouTube video on taxes and growth ?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    27th Mar 2018
    8:16am
    Did you also see the show where they decided that the middle class was the engine room of the economy as they spent more than any other class?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:30am
    Raphael, I've studied ALL the arguments in depth. Unlike you, I examine every argument carefully to find the holes in it. And there are millions of holes in arguments that cutting company taxes generates growth. They simply DO NOT STACK UP when you examine all the facts.

    As one of my children rightly points out, giving struggling small businesses that can't afford enough employees a conditional grant to cover wages for two years would no doubt boost the economy. There are many small businesses that genuinely NEED another worker and just can't find the dollars to pay someone. That is where we COULD generate growth if anyone were smart enough.

    A friend works in a senior position at NAB. She reports how, having achieved record profits, they gave the CEO a massive pay increase and sacked hundreds of workers, resulting in her workload increasing so much she collapsed from exhaustion and had two months on sick leave! Went back to even more sackings and another increase in work load.

    Another much older friend, who was a low paid factory worker, relates the story of the factory owner calling a meeting to explain that he could not afford to increase the pay rate of workers who were complaining of underpayment, because the business was going through a ''dry patch'', so anyone who was unhappy had best just leave. He then gave himself and 8 senior executives - ALL family - a 20% pay raise.

    There are thousands of these stories.

    There will always be so-called experts who present politically-motivated argument and fudge facts to back it up. But we've all seen first hand what happens when companies have more to spend. And we've seen where the ''additional capital'' goes. To Cayman Island bank accounts to dodge tax!

    And by the way, I AM an entrepreneur. Despite huge disadvantage, I have been moderately successful in life because I NEVER thought like a peasant. That's why people like Misty are now doubting my story. They think it's not possible for people who have had my life experiences to end up a self-funded retiree (if I ever decide to quit work in my own ENTERPRISE).

    You need to stop thinking like the greedy privileged and recognize what's actually happening in today's world.
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:40am
    OGR you need to get out in the real world and see what is really happening instead of studying the works of academics.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:36pm
    I'm quoting the REAL WORLD, OG. It's ALL I ever take note of. The academics are morons.
    Triss
    26th Mar 2018
    8:43pm
    Never vote a multi millionaire into a position of power, all they’ll do is shovel more millions into their pockets and the pockets of other multi millionaires by way of tax cuts and perks.
    HS
    26th Mar 2018
    9:01pm
    Didn't Donald Trump, the multi-millionaire, declare that he wouldn't take the president's salary of US$400,000 pa?
    Hmm, I wonder how many US$$$$ are accumulating for him behind the scenes when he retires the presidency?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    27th Mar 2018
    8:17am
    Our PM donates a lot more to the liberal party than he gets for being PM.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:31am
    To the LNP? Wow! What an arsehole he is then. Give money to the stinking privileged to expand their stinking privilege and stuff the country. And you want us to applaud him for that?
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:33am
    No problem with that at all as he can afford to do so. The unions give away much more to the Labor party and it is the worker's money which they could put to better use themselves. That is the real problem.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th Mar 2018
    8:18am
    Oh, so the master hypocrite with his disgusting double standards says it's okay for one arsehole to give his money to distort the government, but not the other arsehole to do exactly the same?

    I don't agree with the workers' money supporting political persuasion either, OG, but if it didn't, we'd have a dictatorship - one that restored feudal conditions, handing out to the rich constantly and trampling on the less advantage. We are quite close enough to that now, thankyou. I repeat, MT donating to the LNP is DISGUSTING and it should be banned.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    8:55am
    What is all this NONSESE about having to cut corporate taxes. We already have one of the lowest rates in the world. At 17% (actual comparable rate) it's way below most other countries. Certainly a long way below the USA.
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    11:22am
    Rubbish OGR we have some of the highest company tax rates in the world and we need to halve them from 30% to 15% to be as competitive as the rest of the world.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:33pm
    You obviously know NOTHING about tax rates. OG, or maybe you just believe the LNP LIARS? We have very LOW company tax rates. Way lower than the USA. 17% actually. 25% is nominal, but the actual rate is 17%.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    9:33pm
    You obviously know NOTHING about tax rates. OG, or maybe you just believe the LNP LIARS? We have very LOW company tax rates. Way lower than the USA. 17% actually. 25% is nominal, but the actual rate is 17%.
    kinkakuji
    27th Mar 2018
    9:39am
    Notice that in the last 2 or 5 or even 10 years and more..the Australian Government, controlled by whichever main party puppets, has managed to NOT do ONE single positive thing for Australia..during that time however, and ongoing, they have been doing their best to out trump each other with who can dream up the nastiest most destructive strategies to fk up Australia across the board.and steal wealth from Aussies...the media has cheered it all on..can people see how this Matrix works..it is utter BS....How many new dams have they built, roads are continually upgraded but how many new roads have been built, how many new railway lines have been built, how many new hospitals, how many new airports, how many billions have been given away to foreign governments with little control of what is done with that money, how many unsuitable Islamic immigrants have been imported, how many African immigrants have we imported? Good money fleeced from the Australian taxpayers and bloody well squandered. Wake up Australia!...new roads have been built..then tolled..then given away to foreigners to thieve us for billions..Transurban is now a spanish (and being offshore is tax free) company..and it is happily raping Australians with the Australian (with States) Government running a protection racket as Chief Pimp..naturally all the money they are taking is accounted for in such a way as to be tax free...net benefit for Aussies? - NEGATIVE BILLIONS for decades...it is astonishing
    Old Geezer
    27th Mar 2018
    10:24am
    Rubbish. We have a new high tech hospital being built in our area, a new $40 million high school, Pacific Hway I nothing but road works for 100 of kilometres, we have a new airport, Transurban doesn't pay much tax as it is highly geared, railways are not being built as no one except pensioners use them in the country.

    The change to the pensioner asset test was well over due and thanks for our present government for doing something about it. I can't say the same for the latest goose Shorten and his non refund of franking credits though. We can't afford to have Labor in power that is a given.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th Mar 2018
    8:15am
    OG, you only approve the assets test change because you are rusted on LNP supporter who wasn't unfairly hurt by it. There is NO JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER for punishing people for saving by taking 7.8%+ when the average return is only 5%. Yes, many get way more than 5%. Which makes it even MORE wrong, because it only attacks the disadvantaged who, due to lack of educational opportunity and perhaps trauma or crisis that made them fear risk, cannot achieve a decent income on their savings. Supporting an attack on them makes you a bully.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th Mar 2018
    8:22am
    The assets test, is, in fact, hideously unfair and should never have been introduced. It attacks responsible savers for saving. That's bad for the nation. Means test incomes - including deemed income and including deemed income on the family home, with a generous OVERALL threshold, and tax retirement incomes. Or pay a universal pension and tax retirement incomes over a generous threshold. Would be far fairer and better for the economy because it wouldn't attack savers who struggle to achieve good returns and it wouldn't encourage manipulation by rich people to get a pension they don't need.
    ronnieb
    27th Mar 2018
    2:34pm
    Well, OG and OGR you certainly put your big feet in it with your comments about earning on shares (Either in or out of superranuation i assume). I retired in 2005 with around $600k in my super Annuity. When the GFC was staerting to raise its ugly head i asked my fund manager to convert as much as possible to cash. He refused because he said i didn't know what i was talking about. Consequence? I lost $450k and am now on a full pension. I have barely $300k total assessable assets according to the Centrelink test. If i cashed out all of that then invested it in shares i would be an absolute idiot. You are using an example where somebody invests something like that amount, or more in shares. My comment was that if you have that amount of cash to invest in shares then you don't need the pension or any franking credits because you are going to lose a big chunk of it when the global debt situation hits the proverbial fan. Do you have any idea how big that is? Currently somewehre around north of U$25trillion. When the GFC hit the global debt was less than half that. Think about it.

    You are right, i am not an economist i am an engineer and i strongly believe and can prove that what goes up must come down.

    Good luck with your millions.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th Mar 2018
    8:13am
    ronnnieb, why do you make ASSUMPTIONS? Maybe you don't realise that ASS-U-MEs make an ASS out of you?

    I don't have millions. I don't even have $1 million. And I am not yet retired, despite being well past retirement age.

    I am concerned for people who are being wrongly harmed by a cruel and hideously discriminatory policy that will hurt the nation, and I put forward scenarios to show how wrong the assumptions of those supporting this brain fizz are.

    As for not investing in shares, just what do YOU suggest people invest in to sustain a decent income when they can't get a pension? Bank interest would give them barely $25,000 on $1 million. For a couple, that's nowhere near enough to live on. Property is overpriced and returning poorly at present. There are not a lot of options for those who tried to save enough to be comfortably self-funded in old age and didn't anticipate that interest rates that ran at 15% when they were saving would crash to 2% or lower.

    All this talk of generational inequity amuses me. Retirees of the past generation were enjoying 15% interest and much higher asset thresholds for pensions back when our generation was struggling with 18% interest and a huge recession. I didn't hear a single person, back then, complain about ''intergenerational inequity''. Everyone I knew was just glad to see the aging living comfortably.

    Today, it seems respect for the aging has gone and respect for people who save and contribute responsibly to the nation has gone. The ''entitlement mentality'' has destroyed our society, and you are right - it will destroy our economy. And the global debt will keep rising because IDIOTS conceive brain fizzes to bash the people who REDUCE IT and handout to those who don't.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    29th Mar 2018
    9:35am
    Ronnie if you instructed your fund manager to convert into cash in writing and they refused to I hope you sued them. Been there myself where the person managing my money failed to carry out my instructions and threatened to sue them and had all my loses reimbursed.

    My evidence that I have done the right thing as I now get to keep my franking credits. This OAP game is so awesome when one plays by the rules.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Mar 2018
    10:06pm
    Anyone who has read my posts over past months knows that I have been the champion of the needy and stood up aggressively for those who do it tough. I protested loud and long over suggestions of pension cuts and over company tax cuts.

    But I am deeply disappointed and hurt at the disgusting and vile disrespect and greed being evidenced by pensioners who scream blue murder if anything threatens them, but now cheer the demolition of the savings of struggling SFRs by a shockingly unfair tax.

    It really boggles the mind. These SFRs are contributing tens of thousands every year to the Federal budget by not drawing a pension. They generally support call for a better deal for pensioners. And now you vile and disgustingly greedy pensioners are cheering policies that are brutally unfair and cruel and will take 1/3rd of their income and grind them into hardship. Why? Because you are jealous of their savings. You don't consider for one instant how those savings were acquired or why they went without to save, or what their long term needs are. You just scream ''they've got money. Take it off them''.

    Shame on you disgraceful creatures.

    And you are your own worst enemies, and complete fools. These people are easing the load on the pension system. If there are less of them, and more pensioners, there is less to go around all the OAPs and more pressure to cut pensions and concessions.

    You won't get your wish. These people are too smart for that Shorten idiot. They will shift their affairs to avoid being hurt, at massive cost to the economy. But hundreds of thousands more will elect to be pensioners, because there is no benefit in saving, and then with more pensioners and less revenue, there will be more calls for cuts to pensions. Enjoy your poverty. You richly deserve it!
    Alan
    28th Mar 2018
    1:20pm
    Close the tax shelters and loopholes which allow companies and the super rich to avoid paying their share of tax on profits/income earnt in Australia then set company tax at a reasonable level so that it is worthwhile for companies to invest in Australia and employ people.
    Reduce "middle and upper income" welfare entitlements and include all assets in the pension eligibility process so that asset rich/income poor do not quality and set the old age and disability pensions at a reasonable level with strict eligibility criteria to discourage those who don't deserve it from receiving it because it pays better than some other pensions.

    The taxation/welfare system is broken it needs to be fixed.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    29th Mar 2018
    9:40am
    And where is the incentive to invest or operate your company in Australia. Ask the manufacturing companies why they left Australia? It is simply too expensive to have their businesses here.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    29th Mar 2018
    10:56am
    That's crap, BigBear. Nobody left because of company tax rates. Many unethical companies left because they wanted to use cheap labour from countries that treat their people like slaves and don't care about poverty. Our company tax rates are VERY LOW and our tax climate is way too favourable for business and the wealthy.

    Alan, I agree with some of your comments, but not 'strict eligibility criteria', because all means testing does - across the board - is encourage and reward cheats and manipulators. The mattress bank currently pays more than 8% return with no risk and 6-monthly increases in income, guaranteed. There are too many ways people can get around eligibility criteria, and it's getting way too hard for the honest and ethical to get by.

    A universal pension is the ONLY answer. Pay everyone over retirement age the same amount and TAX RETIREMENT INCOME FAIRLY.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    29th Mar 2018
    11:23am
    I am strongly opposed to company tax cuts, but I'm amused at how many who oppose them support Shorten's BS on franking credits, which I believe will be equally or more harmful to aged pensions. Forcing investment away from Australian companies and into foreign shares and property, combined with pressuring self-funded retirees to divest and claim a pension because they can no longer get a decent return on their savings, will do horrendous harm to the economy - which can ONLY flow on to hurt for pensioners.

    Mind-boggling how people can't see past ''doesn't hurt me'' and can't see through the LIES of those who claim it will only hurt the wealthy. It doesn't take much analysis to see that the wealthy WON'T SUFFER, but the struggling SFRs will be pushed into hardship and onto pensions.
    GrayComputing
    30th Mar 2018
    5:28pm
    NOTE to all MPs and the Super rich support teams and their web robots:

    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

    Do you or other MP 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 you as a compassionate person let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    You even stand to lose your chance at government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Adrianus
    1st Apr 2018
    9:39am
    Yes, we need to increase taxes on everything. Let's make it as difficult as possible for foreign investment.
    Why?
    Well we want to know how much we rely on that foreign investment obviously.
    We want to know how far we can push them.
    However, we should all be prepared for the outcome, which will undoubtedly mean no more welfare.
    Our biggest taxpayer is looking to increase its business overseas already.
    Let's encourage that shall we??
    Priscilla
    23rd Apr 2018
    11:14am
    Definitely NO tax cuts. Big businesses are cutting jobs every day, especially the banks. Where will the government get its revenue when big business pays less? Already people are being taxed more and more and getting less and less services. Abolishing weekend penalty rates has not increased employment. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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