Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested (Read 4847 times)
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #45 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:00pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:39pm:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/a866861f12e106e0ca256a38002791fa/e95a009...

Quote:
MARKET SECTOR

On an hours worked basis, market sector multifactor productivity (MFP) grew 0.9% in 2015-16. This year marked the fifth consecutive year of un-interrupted MFP growth, and was the result of 2.4% increase in gross value added and a 1.5% increase in combined labour and capital inputs. On the inputs side, capital services growth was stronger (+2.3%) than hours worked (+0.9%), while labour productivity (LP) recorded 1.5% growth for the year.

On a quality adjusted hours worked basis, labour input growth was 1.4%, a result 0.5% higher than labour inputs on hours worked basis. Consequently, quality adjusted MFP grew 0.6% and labour productivity was up 1.0% for 2015-16. The weaker growth in quality adjusted labour productivity reflects a positive contribution from changes to labour composition, due to educational attainment and work experience.


http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/MF/5260.0.55.002


What's your point ?
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #46 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:09pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:16am:
Bam wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:10am:
crocodile wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 2:32pm:
Would have been a win-win for everyone if instead the penalty rates were kept and the corporate tax rate lowered.

The doctrine of neoliberalism is dying. One day you'll understand this.

Companies MUST pay their share of tax because they are voracious consumers of infrastructure and services that must be funded by taxpayers. 3% of gross turnover is not a high rate of tax. If anything, company taxes need to be increased, not lowered. The way we increase company taxes is to start scrapping the huge numbers of corporate tax loopholes that are not needed. Company tax breaks that were needed when company tax rates were 49% are simply not justifiable now. We may also need to increase the tax on profits, or introduce new efficient taxes on business so more inefficient taxes like payroll tax can be scrapped.

What we need to do instead of lowering business taxes is invest money in lowering business costs. It's not government taxes that are the biggest drain on corporate expenses, but private taxes from privatisation. Privatisation has failed because it has increased costs to many businesses more than reductions in company taxes have lowered them, and this is a drag on the economy. Tolls from toll roads, soaring energy prices and massive increases to fixed service charges are some examples of privatised taxes on business that can be lowered. Renationalising would allow the scrapping of tolls and fixed charges and would remove the privatised constraints on energy supply, among other benefits. If business taxes were increased to 50% of profits (equivalently, 5% of turnover on average) and the funds raised were used to renationalise all of these expensive privatised services, many businesses would actually be better off.

It has precisely zero to do with neoliberalism.

Rubbish. One of the core tenets of the neoliberal doctrine is a manic determination to lower business taxes. That is also a common theme in many of your posts - lower company taxes, lower company taxes, blah blah blah. You consistently miss the big picture: businesses require government-funded services like everyone else and should be expected to contribute to funding them.

crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:16am:
It is nothing more than the recognition of who bears the burden of the taxes. One day you'll understand this.

You still keep banging on about turnover. Taxes are paid on profit. One day you'll work this one too.

That is incorrect. Business taxes are not always paid out of profit. Payroll tax is not paid on profit. Land taxes are not paid on profit. There are other business taxes that are also not paid on profit, in fact, the majority of taxes on business have nothing to do with profit when levied.

Yes, I have advocated a turnover tax on businesses. So what? The idea behind that tax proposal is as a means to reduce the tax burden on businesses, not increase it, by allowing businesses to bank the savings of lower compliance costs while the governments do not lose revenue overall.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #47 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:40pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:44am:
1) So you agree it has nothing to do with the Topic.

No, I don't agree.


2) How does the location of the money impact your Labour Productivity ? I would think that a corporation having money locally or O/S - paying tax or not paying tax would have no impact on production per unit per hour ?

If one wishes to increase production per labour input it must involve investment of their own capital.


In fact more likely the opposite the company hiding profits and paying no tax would have more available funds to drive production with technology. If anything he is right and you are not though it still has no impact on the topic either way. 

If anything, you are both dead wrong. Driving production with technology requires investment within and a higher skill set from the employees.




And this still has nothing to do with not knowing the impact of removing penalty rates.

Quote:
Driving production with technology requires investment


And it is still no difference if the funds for that investment had tax paid on it or not or if it had been held on the Cayman Islands or not. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #48 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 11:35pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:40pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:44am:
1) So you agree it has nothing to do with the Topic.

No, I don't agree.


2) How does the location of the money impact your Labour Productivity ? I would think that a corporation having money locally or O/S - paying tax or not paying tax would have no impact on production per unit per hour ?

If one wishes to increase production per labour input it must involve investment of their own capital.


In fact more likely the opposite the company hiding profits and paying no tax would have more available funds to drive production with technology. If anything he is right and you are not though it still has no impact on the topic either way. 

If anything, you are both dead wrong. Driving production with technology requires investment within and a higher skill set from the employees.




And this still has nothing to do with not knowing the impact of removing penalty rates.

You are entitled to that opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you


Quote:
Driving production with technology requires investment


And it is still no difference if the funds for that investment had tax paid on it or not or if it had been held on the Cayman Islands or not. 

If it's in the Caymans, it hasn't been reinvested.........


Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #49 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 12:00am
 
Bam wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:09pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:16am:
Bam wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:10am:
crocodile wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 2:32pm:
Would have been a win-win for everyone if instead the penalty rates were kept and the corporate tax rate lowered.

The doctrine of neoliberalism is dying. One day you'll understand this.

Companies MUST pay their share of tax because they are voracious consumers of infrastructure and services that must be funded by taxpayers. 3% of gross turnover is not a high rate of tax. If anything, company taxes need to be increased, not lowered. The way we increase company taxes is to start scrapping the huge numbers of corporate tax loopholes that are not needed. Company tax breaks that were needed when company tax rates were 49% are simply not justifiable now. We may also need to increase the tax on profits, or introduce new efficient taxes on business so more inefficient taxes like payroll tax can be scrapped.

What we need to do instead of lowering business taxes is invest money in lowering business costs. It's not government taxes that are the biggest drain on corporate expenses, but private taxes from privatisation. Privatisation has failed because it has increased costs to many businesses more than reductions in company taxes have lowered them, and this is a drag on the economy. Tolls from toll roads, soaring energy prices and massive increases to fixed service charges are some examples of privatised taxes on business that can be lowered. Renationalising would allow the scrapping of tolls and fixed charges and would remove the privatised constraints on energy supply, among other benefits. If business taxes were increased to 50% of profits (equivalently, 5% of turnover on average) and the funds raised were used to renationalise all of these expensive privatised services, many businesses would actually be better off.

It has precisely zero to do with neoliberalism.

Rubbish. One of the core tenets of the neoliberal doctrine is a manic determination to lower business taxes. That is also a common theme in many of your posts - lower company taxes, lower company taxes, blah blah blah. You consistently miss the big picture: businesses require government-funded services like everyone else and should be expected to contribute to funding them.

You are confused. Whether it is part of neoliberalism thinking is rather irrelevant as it is not my motivation for advocating a lowering of corporate tax. It is indeed yourself that doesn't see the big picture. As stated many times already, the important consideration is not who has the legal obligation to pay a certain tax but who bears the burden of the tax. Overwhelmingly it has been shown that the burden of corporate tax falls more heavily on the workers than it does on the owners of the capital. I've even cited quite a few references to this. Hardly a doctrinaire neoliberal motivation.


crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:16am:
It is nothing more than the recognition of who bears the burden of the taxes. One day you'll understand this.

You still keep banging on about turnover. Taxes are paid on profit. One day you'll work this one too.

That is incorrect. Business taxes are not always paid out of profit. Payroll tax is not paid on profit. Land taxes are not paid on profit. There are other business taxes that are also not paid on profit, in fact, the majority of taxes on business have nothing to do with profit when levied.

To the best of my knowledge I have commented only on corporate taxation. I've never even mentioned land or payroll taxes. Payroll taxes should go anyway. Land taxes, I have no great objection to but these are a different matter.


Yes, I have advocated a turnover tax on businesses. So what? The idea behind that tax proposal is as a means to reduce the tax burden on businesses, not increase it, by allowing businesses to bank the savings of lower compliance costs while the governments do not lose revenue overall.

They're called cascading taxes. A small percentage is levied at each point in the production chain from primary producer to the consumer. For large firms like Woolies or Wesfarmers the solution is a rather simple one.  Vertically integrate backwards along the chain either buying up the suppliers or creating your own production units. This way, the tax is levied only once. Smaller entities that cannot integrate in this way end up paying the tax on goods that have already been taxed numerous times, can't compete and are driven out of business. Left standing are just a handful of large corporations paying the tax only once and revenue collapses.

This is precisely what happened throughout Europe a century ago and is the reason for the implementation of VAT.

Not one of your best and brightest ideas.


Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79567
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #50 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:02am
 
Perhaps they should pay income tax on their gross, same as everyone else.....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #51 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:02am:
Perhaps they should pay income tax on their gross, same as everyone else.....


Makes no difference. Complicates the returns for no gain.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79567
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #52 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 2:03pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:02am:
Perhaps they should pay income tax on their gross, same as everyone else.....


Makes no difference. Complicates the returns for no gain.



You mean corporations with a gross income over a couple of hundred grand already pay 40% or whatever tax on GROSS earnings, same as everyone else pays?  They'd die if they did.

Jo Bloggsich doesn't get a deduction for running the car to the station and then train fare to go to work.... Bloggs Enterprises does...

It's already a sweet ride in business.. no need to make it any sweeter.

I still prefer the graduated tax scale as per the US idea, with the lowest revenue generation paying less and the highest more, and a tax moratorium, subject to full review, for the first two years of operation of a genuine new business - not just a 're-badged' one.  Subsidiaries of corporations do not need a tax break for those first two years, but I'm open to discussion.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #53 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 2:22pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 2:03pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:02am:
Perhaps they should pay income tax on their gross, same as everyone else.....


Makes no difference. Complicates the returns for no gain.



You mean corporations with a gross income over a couple of hundred grand already pay 40% or whatever tax on GROSS earnings, same as everyone else pays?  They'd die if they did.

Jo Bloggsich doesn't get a deduction for running the car to the station and then train fare to go to work.... Bloggs Enterprises does...

It's already a sweet ride in business.. no need to make it any sweeter.

I still prefer the graduated tax scale as per the US idea, with the lowest revenue generation paying less and the highest more, and a tax moratorium, subject to full review, for the first two years of operation of a genuine new business - not just a 're-badged' one.  Subsidiaries of corporations do not need a tax break for those first two years, but I'm open to discussion.


Bloggs Enterprises doesn't drive a car nor catch the train.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #54 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 4:27pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 2:03pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:41am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:02am:
Perhaps they should pay income tax on their gross, same as everyone else.....


Makes no difference. Complicates the returns for no gain.



You mean corporations with a gross income over a couple of hundred grand already pay 40% or whatever tax on GROSS earnings, same as everyone else pays?  They'd die if they did.

Jo Bloggsich doesn't get a deduction for running the car to the station and then train fare to go to work.... Bloggs Enterprises does...

It's already a sweet ride in business.. no need to make it any sweeter.

I still prefer the graduated tax scale as per the US idea, with the lowest revenue generation paying less and the highest more, and a tax moratorium, subject to full review, for the first two years of operation of a genuine new business - not just a 're-badged' one.  Subsidiaries of corporations do not need a tax break for those first two years, but I'm open to discussion.


Why not have high minimum wages and reduce company tax to 0%?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #55 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 8:57pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 11:35pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:40pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:44am:
1) So you agree it has nothing to do with the Topic.

No, I don't agree.


2) How does the location of the money impact your Labour Productivity ? I would think that a corporation having money locally or O/S - paying tax or not paying tax would have no impact on production per unit per hour ?

If one wishes to increase production per labour input it must involve investment of their own capital.


In fact more likely the opposite the company hiding profits and paying no tax would have more available funds to drive production with technology. If anything he is right and you are not though it still has no impact on the topic either way. 

If anything, you are both dead wrong. Driving production with technology requires investment within and a higher skill set from the employees.




And this still has nothing to do with not knowing the impact of removing penalty rates.

You are entitled to that opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you


Quote:
Driving production with technology requires investment


And it is still no difference if the funds for that investment had tax paid on it or not or if it had been held on the Cayman Islands or not. 

If it's in the Caymans, it hasn't been reinvested.........




You seem to have the opinion that all money invested must be instantaneous and does not go through accounts or is invested from savings etc.

I can give an example from a company I was with, it was decided to spend a few hundred million on broadcast communications infrastructure in partnership with several transmission companies making up the rest. The first step was to minimise spending and save money in investments for about 3 years in order to fund the venture. This money could have been kept anywhere for that period of time. It is not uncommon for a company to realise capital before spending it in an often delayed manner. Note they do not keep that few billion Dollars in the OIC's wallet.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #56 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 10:06pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 8:57pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 11:35pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:40pm:
crocodile wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 10:22am:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:44am:
1) So you agree it has nothing to do with the Topic.

No, I don't agree.


2) How does the location of the money impact your Labour Productivity ? I would think that a corporation having money locally or O/S - paying tax or not paying tax would have no impact on production per unit per hour ?

If one wishes to increase production per labour input it must involve investment of their own capital.


In fact more likely the opposite the company hiding profits and paying no tax would have more available funds to drive production with technology. If anything he is right and you are not though it still has no impact on the topic either way. 

If anything, you are both dead wrong. Driving production with technology requires investment within and a higher skill set from the employees.




And this still has nothing to do with not knowing the impact of removing penalty rates.

You are entitled to that opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you


Quote:
Driving production with technology requires investment


And it is still no difference if the funds for that investment had tax paid on it or not or if it had been held on the Cayman Islands or not. 

If it's in the Caymans, it hasn't been reinvested.........




You seem to have the opinion that all money invested must be instantaneous and does not go through accounts or is invested from savings etc.

I can give an example from a company I was with, it was decided to spend a few hundred million on broadcast communications infrastructure in partnership with several transmission companies making up the rest. The first step was to minimise spending and save money in investments for about 3 years in order to fund the venture. This money could have been kept anywhere for that period of time. It is not uncommon for a company to realise capital before spending it in an often delayed manner. Note they do not keep that few billion Dollars in the OIC's wallet.


I never said otherwise. You don't quite get my point which was in response to Grapples' statement:

Quote:
There's nothing to prevent companies/corporations offshoring the profits even when labour productivity is up, and it is the end result that counts.


It is not quite correct. No investment, no labour productivity growth.

Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79567
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #57 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:01pm
 
Does any solid economy in balance need productivity growth at the cost of jobs? 

You can't take these things in isolation.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Economic Benefits Of Penalty Rate Cuts Not Tested
Reply #58 - Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:14pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 11:01pm:
Does any solid economy in balance need productivity growth at the cost of jobs? 

You can't take these things in isolation.


Why is it necessary that productivity growth cost jobs ?
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print