Its time wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:35am:

fair point

Richdude wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 2:46am:


You're so right rich dude. Australia needs to cut its corporate tax rate to at least 20% if it is to have any hope if attracting business & capital to migrate here.
The trouble is the voters have been brainwashed into thinking business = rich people, when the truth is corporations are largely owned by pension funds which are the savings of millions of average people.

In fact, I would go so far as offering a tax holiday of 10 years to attract the right kind of innovative business. The payoff in jobs would be worth it alone.

The European Union trade chief says the trade policies US President Donald Trump has set out are "doomed to fail" and that the world's biggest trading bloc remains committed to open borders and economies.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said Tuesday that most countries still share the same vision of open trade and investments.

"Building a wall is not the answer. The success of the EU relies on our open societies," Malmstrom said.

"Those who in the 21st century think that we can become great again by rebuilding borders, re-imposing trade barriers, restricting people's freedom to move, they are doomed to fail."

Trump's decision to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday was seen as an indicator to a more closed US trade policy.
:AAP

Edit: Ms Malstrom ought to go and visit her presumably-native Sweden and see what open borders has done for that.
They are utterly shameless these feudal barons of the EU, dictating to their serfs and peons how they should adapt to the horrible fate they have inflicted upon them with their welcoming of a Muslim invasion.
And it's not as if they can even point to economic success for their policies. The EU is a basket case.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2017 at 8:13am:


Very true, Bogie, but innovation now lies in online services, which are typically started up in homes and garages. Unfortunately, Australia doesn't yet have the infrastructure to facilitate a boom in this area, and it certainly doesn't have the consumer base.

Australia is a mining economy in transition. The US is an economy based on intellectual property - brands, patents, IT, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, agricultural products.

Trump voters are largely those who've fallen foul of the decline in heavy manufacturing. The main reason this has moved offshore is the cost of wages, not tax. The US economy is no longer a production line, it's a service economy. Cutting wages, business tax (and imposing tariffs) is a lose-lose. This plan would see a drop in income (and consumer demand), lower state revenue (a mounting deficit), and higher prices (tariffs are taxes).

However, the big cause of manufacturing job decline is robotics. What we call manufacturing is not so much making things, but assembling them. Parts are made by machines and sent to China to be put together.

Manufacturing can return to the US, but at what price? Why not continue it's current model as a smart, service economy?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2017 at 9:19am:


Strange. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have both campaigned to raise the minimum wage. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have actively campaigned to increase the taxes of the wealthy.

All three live modest lives. Warren Buffet has an average-sized suburban home and two cars. All three eat the same as you or I. They've said so - this is their argument. How can their wealth possibly trickle down? They don't spend it.

The one billionaire who thinks differently is Donald Trump - a rich guy who based his brand on displays of excessive wealth and kitsch. When Trump settled his corporate bankruptcy, he was granted over $400,000 a month to live on. This money came straight from the investors in Trump casino junk bonds. Trump represents excessive affluence, gained from those he calls losers - I.e, investors and customers; those who fall for what he calls "truthful lies". This was Trump's pitch in the Art of the Deal.

So, on the one hand we have modest people who've done what they love doing and have made a fortune out of it. They have formed a lobby group to redistribute their own wealth. Despite their millions in charitable donations, they argue that only a raise in the minimum wage and increased taxation at the top end can make Amerika great again.

On the other hand, we have a corporate bankrupt who has not paid tax in years, despite his wealth and oppulant lifestyle. His plan is to make the wealthy richer, minimise their tax and lower their employees' wages.

Who to believe?