Support NeoGAF

[Aarglefarg]

If labor were competent they could quite easily portray this industry push back against negative hearing reform as blatant self interest from giant corporations (which it is), but after the mining tax debacle I have no confidence.

I didn't catch all of it but I think Chris Bowen was doing something like this today? He said something like that the Daily Telegraph acknowledges their self-interest in the status quo, and that who doesn't benefit from the current setup are hundreds of thousands of people looking to buy their first house.

 

[D.Lo]

In Adelaide, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the real estate industry representatives knew what they were talking about.

"What they're saying is warning that Bill Shorten's reckless and dangerous experiment with the largest asset class in Australia will drive down home values and drive up rents," Mr Turnbull said.

Fucking piece of shit knows this makes no sense, but is trying to scare both sides.

Sooooo if house prices are lower, and more people move to buy a home to live in, why exactly would rents go up? Especially in the short term? -1 Tennant, -1 number of properties available to let = lower/same rents. And with NG still applying to new properties, more houses will actually be built = lower rents again.

He might as well say "The price of apples will crash, and because of that Apple pie will be far more expensive!"

 

[Dryk]

If that's true then why aren't rents at historic lows?

 

[bobnowhere]

We all know the real reason for high house prices:

Unions

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Fuck I want Turnbull out on his rich arse

 

[danm999]

Didn't they learn over the wet fart that was the ABCC that you can't cram "the unions!!!1!" into every political argument?

They're entirely a theoretical concept to millions of people and they just don't interact with them on a day to day basis. It's just weak politics.

As is going on about how wonderful high housing prices are for property owners and then turning around and trying to demonise trade unions for that state of events.

 

[D.Lo]

As is going on about how wonderful high housing prices are for property owners and then turning around and trying to demonise trade unions for that state of events.

Haha yep.

Turnbull: "Fixing union corruption would be a sledgehammer to property prices! We must maintain union corruption to keep up the value of the primary investment of most Australians!"

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I've become so disheartened with politics over the decades of voting I've been involved in my vote goes to whichever party will deliver a useful NBN in a reasonable time.

Call me shallow or what have you I just don't care to vote for the lesser of evils anymore. Mandatory voting probably skews our process anyhow.

Me too. The liberal party have pretty much destroyed any chance I'd vote for them with their NBN policy.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Haha yep.

Turnbull: "Fixing union corruption would be a sledgehammer to property prices! We must maintain union corruption to keep up the value of the primary investment of most Australians!"

Am I the only one who has difficulty seeing your place of residence as an investment ? The place you live is a) incredibly non-liquid (since you have to sell it and have a new place to live in arranged afterwards and get it cleaned and repaired to sellable standard) and b) it's appreciation is likely negated by the need to buy another property that has appreciated at the same rate, so it's return is much lower than naive Capital Gains would assume.

 

[Yagharek]

If that's true then why aren't rents at historic lows?

It takes time to trickle down. Just be patient.

 

[D.Lo]

Am I the only one who has difficulty seeing your place of residence as an investment ? The place you live is a) incredibly non-liquid (since you have to sell it and have a new place to live in arranged afterwards and get it cleaned and repaired to sellable standard) and b) it's appreciation is likely negated by the need to buy another property that has appreciated at the same rate, so it's return is much lower than naive Capital Gains would assume.

Yep.

And if the market crashes, it doesn't matter per-se, as your house goes down and so do all the others proportionally. So you're in the same ratios of downsizing/upsizing.

Houses are supposed to be the equivalent of putting your cash under the mattress, a safe but unproductive place to keep money. Instead they have been basically forced into becoming a 'productive' industry through Howard's degenerate capital gains discount.

 

[bobnowhere]

If you can be bothered:

Debate Stream

 

[darkace]

This debate over company tax is the stupidest thing ever. Abolish it already.

 

[Yagharek]

Yep.

And if the market crashes, it doesn't matter per-se, as your house goes down and so do all the others proportionally. So you're in the same ratios of downsizing/upsizing.

Houses are supposed to be the equivalent of putting your cash under the mattress, a safe but unproductive place to keep money. Instead they have been basically forced into becoming a 'productive' industry through Howard's degenerate capital gains discount.

There are region specific changes though to housing. It's fine if you're moving within an area but not so fine if you're moving from a depressed market to a still growing one.

 

[bobnowhere]

A zinger!

 

[Aarglefarg]

If you can be bothered:

Debate Stream

Thank you very much.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

This debate over company tax is the stupidest thing ever. Abolish it already.

What a stupid thing to say.

 

[bobnowhere]

Well that was a little like the Thunderdome but everyone got bored and left before the bungee cord and chainsaws came out. Shorten by a damp fish.

 

[darkace]

What a stupid thing to say.

It's an action that has broad academic consensus. Don't we like listening to evidence-based policy?

Edit: Honestly this debate has reminded me why I never listen to politicians anymore. It really doesn't do anything for me. 'No we totally wont be evil but they will', 'No u'. I was kinda hoping that something would come from this but it's just them being as inoffensive as possible without unveiling anything new.

 

[jellies_two]

Me too. The liberal party have pretty much destroyed any chance I'd vote for them with their NBN policy.

My brother in law is a senior manager inside nbn he told me the Libs want nbn to suck because it makes it easier to auction off to private enterprise, later on. It was in their interest to castrate it by faint praise, and bad tech choices. They are effectively screwing up broadband for political points and ideology.
And of course when it is sold in the name of competition, it will have as much real competition as the Sydney airport when it was sold to those Macquarie assholes: none at all.

 

[Aarglefarg]

42 of the 100 undecided voters at the People's Forum were more likely to vote for Shorten after the debate, 29 were more likely to vote for Turnbull and the remaining 29 gave no preference.

 

[bomma_man]

This debate over company tax is the stupidest thing ever. Abolish it already.

Only if it's accompanied by increasing the top income bracket and tying capital gains to income levels.

 

[darkace]

Only if it's accompanied by increasing the top income bracket and tying capital gains to income levels.

You could raise basically any tax or cut any spending and it would be a net benefit.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Only if it's accompanied by increasing the top income bracket and tying capital gains to income levels.

I don't disagree with the spirit at all but there are issues with that.
Which income level though ? The income level I have when I sell an asset and thus become liable for capital gains can be completely different than when I bought it. In many cases the income from selling an asset is solely responsible for vast increases in brackets (which can be especially problematic if the asset was originally bought via a lower income over a longer period). Someone who spent 30 years paying off a house at a moderate income and who sells it may temporarily be paying Capital Gains as if they had an income of over a million dollars.

You could raise basically any tax or cut any spending and it would be a net benefit.

Judging by the conditions in countries that have very low taxes and low or no services vs those that have high taxes and high services, especially metrics like quality of life, that seems like its not a principle that holds true for all X.

(I'm not saying the Laffer curve is completely nonsense, there totally are economic circumstances where Tax Cuts and Service Cuts would provide a net benefit but given the neoliberalization of America and closely allied countries, its tremendously unlikely that any country that would actually consider that as a method is in a position where it would actually help)

 

[darkace]

Judging by the conditions in countries that have very low taxes and low or no services vs those that have high taxes and high services, especially metrics like quality of life, that seems like its not a principle that holds true for all X.

(I'm not saying the Laffer curve is completely nonsense, there totally are economic circumstances where Tax Cuts and Service Cuts would provide a net benefit but given the neoliberalization of America and closely allied countries, its tremendously unlikely that any country that would actually consider that as a method is in a position where it would actually help)

I'm not saying it would be a huge benefit (well it would if we eliminated the company tax and imposed a carbon tax instead to make up the lost revenue), or that there would be no downsides. There are no easy paths for growth left. Switching to a more efficient tax mix is all we have. I'm not really talking about the laffer curve, more this: http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01

I'd also say that countries that provide high levels of services and have high taxes being better off than those with low services, low taxes and are worse off brings a serious question of causation into the mix.

And that there are still serious levels of waste and inefficiency in the Australian government. The duplication of federal/state health/education services for one, the PHI subsidy, a few entire departments, etc.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

It's an action that has broad academic consensus. Don't we like listening to evidence-based policy?

Edit: Honestly this debate has reminded me why I never listen to politicians anymore. It really doesn't do anything for me. 'No we totally wont be evil but they will', 'No u'. I was kinda hoping that something would come from this but it's just them being as inoffensive as possible without unveiling anything new.

Please present us this credible evidence.

 

[darkace]

Please present us this credible evidence.

http://www.nber.org/data-appendix/w19757/CorporateTaxPaper.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756

https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/pdfs/wp2008-01e.pdf

http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-adopting-corporate-tax-rates-oecd-uk-and-canada

http://www.jcsuarez.com/Files/Suarez_Serrato-Zidar-Corp_Tax.pdf

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...e-1/The-incidence-of-company-tax-in-Australia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/upshot/one-way-to-fix-the-corporate-tax-repeal-it.html

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/06-14-2011-corporatetaxincidence.pdf

TLDR: It's majority paid by non-supervisory labour and it costs countries between two and four dollars in distortions for every dollar raised in revenue. Likely four dollars in Australia.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Okay, I just read one of those and it suggests a progressive consumption tax instead of pretty much all other taxes. That seems .... .let's say difficult. Consumption taxes are regressive by nature (consumption becomes less compulsory relative to income as income increases) and furthermore any exemptions put in place to ameliorate that will quickly be turned to the advantages of the wealthy (who are far better positioned to reorganize finances to take advantage of such things).

Not to mention the obvious problems of the wealth effectively using their (now non-taxed) businesses to effectively make consumptive purchases for themselves (work vehicles, offices, etc).

While consumption taxes are great because they are unavoidable they are also terrible because the people you most desire to avoid them , in a progressive system, are least capable of doing so (which is also why pretty much all consumption taxes like the GST end up being effectively regressive and requiring compensation).

 

[darkace]

The regressivity of one tax is largely meaningless, it's the system as a whole that matters.

http://bettertax.gov.au/our-tax-system/individuals-income-tax/progressivity/

Australia has one of the best fiscal transfer systems in the world as a whole. I could go either way with an X tax, I like the idea but it is difficult to tax the very wealthy at marginal rates regardless of how it is done.

To add on I think most deductions should be totally eliminated. All they do is distort the system for very little gain.

Drop the top rate down to 40 or so, eliminate basically every deduction. Hopefully that would also take steam out of the housing market by making capital gains relatively less attractive.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

http://www.nber.org/data-appendix/w19757/CorporateTaxPaper.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756

https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/pdfs/wp2008-01e.pdf

http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-adopting-corporate-tax-rates-oecd-uk-and-canada

http://www.jcsuarez.com/Files/Suarez_Serrato-Zidar-Corp_Tax.pdf

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...e-1/The-incidence-of-company-tax-in-Australia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/upshot/one-way-to-fix-the-corporate-tax-repeal-it.html

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/06-14-2011-corporatetaxincidence.pdf

TLDR: It's majority paid by non-supervisory labour and it costs countries between two and four dollars in distortions for every dollar raised in revenue. Likely four dollars in Australia.

I'm not sure you've bothered to read and comprehend all of these.
Yes they all say the same thing i.e. investment increases, wages increase, etc.

But the one that mentions the effect on government revenue and hence transfers (Rimmer, Smith & Wende) showed the following

We're looking at the grey bars because that is closest to describing the reality of the Australian economy. Household full consumption increases by what? 0.03%?

WOW!

When you take transfers from govt into account they then state that for households to gain $421m (yes million) Govt has to forego $1.2billion.

Hmmmm. That's the Andrew Robb school of budgeting for government.

And please don't go posting articles from ratbags like Mankiw.

 

[darkace]

We're looking at the grey bars because that is closest to describing the reality of the

And why exactly are we looking at household full consumption? Why have you chosen that one? And why are you looking at this one? How about the one that shows welfare in Australia increases even when the tax cut is offset 1:1 by welfare spending cuts?

Your attempts to talk econ are downright embarrassing. You've literally cherry-picked one example and then twisted it to fit your narrative. You're again working backwards from your bullshit narrative and then finding facts to fit this. What's it like being a climate change denier or a creationist?

Also 'ratbags like Mankiw'. Lmao. You're so ridiculously off-the-charts biased it's barely worth even responding to you. You're incapable of a neutral look at the facts.

Remember that time that you argued that an increase in human capital wouldn't lead to an increase in productivity because that would mean your ideological beliefs were wrong? Haha what a time that was. I still remember you running off and not saying anything after you were schooled. Good shit, really.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

And why exactly are we looking at household full consumption? Why have you chosen that one?

Your attempts to talk econ are downright embarrassing. 'ratbags like Mankiw' lmao ok guy.

Maybe because we are talking about the effect on society as a whole.
The capital stock accrues only to owners of capital. The rich.
Employment and real wage affects ~ 12m people or 50% of society.
Exchange rate affects our term of trade and it's ridiculous to think that this will be a permanent affect and that that effect will be purely positive.
GDP accrues across both companies and households.
Consumption includes uses of factors of production by businesses.

Household full consumption is the best measure of economic surplus accruing to households (i.e. individuals not incorporated legal entities).

Why do we not want it to accrue to companies?
Take a look at the levels of international investment from places like Netherlands and the Cayman Islands.
Ask yourself why Westfield makes sooooooo much profit but doesn't pay any tax.
They benefit from public infrastructure, Corporate legal protections, govt expenditure on law and order, etc. But hey some bush administration ideologue reckons we shouldn't tax these bastards.

He's gotta be right? eh?

Remember that time that you argued that an increase in human capital wouldn't lead to an increase in productivity because that would mean your ideological beliefs were wrong? Haha what a time that was. I still remember you running off and not saying anything after you were schooled. Good shit, really.

I don't recall arguing that. I said that getting unskilled people to do unskilled jobs for below minimum wage was not going to make them more productive. You thought that it would be better than training them however.

 

[darkace]

Maybe because we are talking about the effect on society as a whole.
The capital stock accrues only to owners of capital. The rich.
Employment and real wage affects ~ 12m people or 50% of society.
Exchange rate affects our term of trade and it's ridiculous to think that this will be a permanent affect and that that effect will be purely positive.
GDP accrues across both companies and households.
Consumption includes uses of factors of production by businesses.

Household full consumption is the best measure of economic surplus accruing to households (i.e. individuals not incorporated legal entities).

Do you think these things only have effects on the direct areas they hit? Like increased capital stock only benefits capital owners over the long-run? Or that increased real wages only benefits the people with the increased real wages? If this was true why would we ever both enacting any fiscal policy, it clearly only benefits a small subset.

I also asked why you're cherry-picking that exact one. What about the Australian study showing it's a clear net benefit even when offset 1:1 with welfare cuts?

Corporate taxes are about 60% paid by non-supervisory labour. But clearly we need to tax 'duh corporations'. Because good policy is whatever your ideological priors happen to be. Tax those dirty corporations! Screw what that actually means!

Also at no point did I argue it would be revenue neutral, which seems to be what you're implying. Nobody in their right mind thinks any developed country has any taxes on the right side of the Laffer curve. Clearly it should be offset with more efficient taxation.

Why do we not want it to accrue to companies?
Take a look at the levels of international investment from places like Netherlands and the Cayman Islands.
Ask yourself why Westfield makes sooooooo much profit but doesn't pay any tax.
They benefit from public infrastructure, Corporate legal protections, govt expenditure on law and order, etc. But hey some bush administration ideologue reckons we shouldn't tax these bastards.

He's gotta be right? eh?

If you read the fucking articles you'd realise that corporate taxes aren't paid by corporations. Which is the entire fucking point. Incorporated legal entities aren't actors capable of paying taxes. You can legislate whatever the fuck you want but legal incidence =/= tax incidence. Do you think payroll taxes are paid by employers? I'll give you a hint, they're 100% paid out of wages.

I don't recall arguing that. I said that getting unskilled people to do unskilled jobs for below minimum wage was not going to make them more productive. You thought that it would be better than training them however.

Increasing human capital is one of the best ways to increase productivity. Human capital includes jobs worked.

Grattan institute released a report showing it would increase national income by 0.6%. But clearly that only accrues to the capital owners or something.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Do you think these things only have effects on the direct areas they hit? Like increased capital stock only benefits capital owners over the long-run? Or that increased real wages only benefits the people with the increased real wages? If this was true why would we ever both enacting any fiscal policy, it clearly only benefits a small subset.

So I was right, you didn't read that study. The flow on effects are included. But lets ignore that eh?

If you read the fucking articles you'd realise that corporate taxes aren't paid by corporations. Which is the entire fucking point. Incorporated legal entities aren't actors capable of paying taxes. You can legislate whatever the fuck you want but legal incidence =/= tax incidence.

Jeesus. Do you know why we try and capture taxable income at the corporation level before it ends up in a family trust with a child's name attached to it?
Read up on your tax law.

Increasing human capital is one of the best ways to increase productivity. Human capital includes jobs worked.

So a economics uni graduate who gets put on the program and works as a dishwasher in a restaurant because their case manager decided it is going to be so much more attractive to a rfc, bank or accounting firm because they can do dishes? You've never been on a hiring panel looking at 200+ resumes before.

Grattan institute released a report showing it would increase national income by 0.6%. But clearly that only accrues to the capital owners or something.

Well hooray for those horrid nasty dirty poor children who rely on taxes for their education.

 

[darkace]

So I was right, you didn't read that study. The flow on effects are included. But lets ignore that eh?

I'm responding to your words.

The capital stock accrues only to owners of capital. The rich.

Remember you saying that? Remember you implying that this particular benefit affected nothing but the rich? It's just there.

Do you know why we try and capture taxable income at the corporation level before it ends up in a family trust with a child's name attached to it?

Do you know I don't care? Why would I give a shit? Who cares why they're doing it, it's awful policy with objectively horrible effects. But just ignore them and go on about childrens trust or some rubbish.

And you bring up tax law!! After I explicitly talked about economic and legal incidence. Awesome. Just awesome.

So a economics uni graduate who gets put on the program

What a phenomenally awful hypothetical. The unemployment rate of uni graduates is way below the background, and econ grads are better than the average uni grad. The idea we should base policy around a hypothetical that would include so few people in reality it wouldn't even appear as a rounding error is ridiculous.

'But what if a recently graduated petro-chemical engineer with a Masters couldn't find a job outside of school'. Stop being so disingenuous. The overwhelming majority of people using this will have never finished grade 12, let alone a bachelors.

Well hooray for those horrid nasty dirty poor children who rely on taxes for their education.

You are genuinely awful at this whole debating like somebody that isn't thirteen thing.

I'm going to ask one last time, and then I'm just ignoring you. The Australian study that you're quoting shows the net benefit after the tax cuts are offset 1:1 with a reduction in welfare spending. Why would we not undertake this given under the worst option it still led to a welfare gain?

It's so weird reading you. It's like you think all revenue is good and all spending is good, and that no change can be made to this because they're at optimal levels or something.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Do you know I don't care? Why would I give a shit? Who cares why they're doing it, it's awful policy with objectively horrible effects. But just ignore them and go on about childrens trust or some rubbish
....

It's so weird reading you. It's like you think all revenue is good and all spending is good, and that no change can be made to this because they're at optimal levels or something.

I'm really not sure if you're ever going to understand the reality of why governments raise taxes or why they spend money on things like teachers, public security and welfare. Your idea that all these corporate taxes are just taxes on ordinary people is so naive I doubt you've ever worked on anything as complicated as a tax return let alone any form of corporate finance.
Have you ever held a job? Have you ever managed a company? Have you ever set up a SPV in the Netherlands with a debt facility to a shelf company in Jersey? Have you ever taken home a bonus for reducing a $250m taxable income to under $20m.

I may not have done the last one myself but I have seen it.
Companies not paying tax hasn't helped anyone more than those companies. Noone is getting compensated outside of those companies except for some trust funds in tax havens overseas. It's not trickling down. And if you think tax is driving companies away, it's not. They can't make money in those tax havens. They still need to operate here. They still need to invest here. Cause here is where they sell their product. Here is where we sell people home loans for their overpriced houses.

You cut corporate tax out completely what are you not going to fund? Cause you ain't getting anywhere near half that back in income tax.
Get rid of hospital funding?
Stop all welfare?
Cut defense spending?

 

[darkace]

I'm really not sure if you're ever going to understand the reality of why governments raise taxes or why they spend money on things like teachers, public security and welfare. Your idea that all these corporate taxes are just taxes on ordinary people is so naive I doubt you've ever worked on anything as complicated as a tax return let alone any form of corporate finance.
Have you ever held a job? Have you ever managed a company? Have you ever set up a SPV in the Netherlands with a debt facility to a shelf company in Jersey? Have you ever taken home a bonus for reducing a $250m taxable income to under $20m.

I may not have done the last one myself but I have seen it.
Companies not paying tax hasn't helped anyone more than those companies. Noone is getting compensated outside of those companies except for some trust funds in tax havens overseas. It's not trickling down. And if you think tax is driving companies away, it's not. They can't make money in those tax havens. They still need to operate here. They still need to invest here. Cause here is where they sell their product. Here is where we sell people home loans for their overpriced houses.

You cut corporate tax out completely what are you not going to fund? Cause you ain't getting anywhere near half that back in income tax.
Get rid of hospital funding?
Stop all welfare?
Cut defense spending?

This is fucking ridiculous. This response is literally nothing. It's just as many words as you could think up to hide a point that doesn't exist.

It is. Very. Very. Simple.

Corporate taxes. Are. Not. Paid. By. Corporations. That is what every. Single. One. Of. My. Sources. Shows. Corporations are not entities capable of paying taxes. Full stop. If you levy taxes on corporations it will be felt by either labour or capital. Studies suggest between 50-70% labour. But since it is indirect it will lead to a much larger marginal excess burden of taxation than other taxes (twice income tax, four to five times GST).

At no point have I gone on about anything other than that. I haven't talked about getting rid of hospital funding. Why would you ever bring that up? I haven't talked about stopping all welfare, why would you ever bring that up? I haven't talked about cutting defense spending, why would you ever bring that up?

If you must know, my position for the removal of corporate tax would involve revenue losses being offset by the introduction of a carbon tax and a land-value tax, but I'm also capable of realising that even if the revenue loss is offset by reduction in welfare spending then it is still welfare enhancing. But hey lets just go on about some shit tangent about tax forms (?????????????????????????????????????). Or trickle down (???????????????). Or how tax isn't driving companies away (hey, it is, behavioural changes as a result of taxation is one of the first things you look at in economics. Also ?????????????????????????) You're literally just throwing as much shit at the wall as you can in the hope it sticks.

Changing the tax mix so the government relies on more efficient taxation streams is a great way forward for growth. But SPV in Netherlands with a debt facility or something. Who knows. For the love of fucking christ just plug economic incidence into wikipedia and start your journey from there.

Don't bother responding to me again, you're a waste of my time. You're utterly incapable of looking outside your ideological priors. If you've actually taken econ then I'd sue your professors, they failed you.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

This is fucking ridiculous. This response is literally nothing. It's just as many words as you could think up to hide a point that doesn't exist.

No it's quite simple. I'm just trying to get it through your thick skull that the real world does not work the same nice clean way as your models and textbooks.

It is. Very. Very. Simple.

Corporate taxes. Are. Not. Paid. By. Corporations. That is what every. Single. One. Of. My. Sources. Shows. ....

Do your sources include the ATO?

Yeah yeah I get that you read a textbook that says its a tax on production except in the real world you can't tax production per se. You can only tax legal entities on their taxable income.

I get that you hope that removing these taxes will lead us to a new nirvana of growth and prosperity for all. Even though you don't want those nasty households to benefit from it. Because households don't matter. Only capital and labour.

But you want to change that to a land tax now. So we tax people on their salary and wages and their homes. We tax farmers for the size of their paddocks rather than their productivity.
Martin place would love that.

No need to get snarky with people either. Maybe you should buy a textbook on manners.

 

[Candescence]

The Sky News 'People's Forum' votes are in, and Shorten basically ran roughshod over Turnbull. Not an enormous lead by any stretch, but as far as first blood goes for these 'debates', it's a pretty sizable one.

 

[darkace]

No it's quite simple. I'm just trying to get it through your thick skull that the real world does not work the same nice clean way as your models and textbooks.

The science is wrooooooooong because I don't like it. Doot doot. Also the globe isn't warming because I don't like it.

We don't need models by those lamestream scientists, just the unsourced, uninformed opinions of somebody that doesn't understand what labour, capital and productivity are, or what economic incidence is, or thinks that we should set taxation based around what we want to tax, not what gives us the best outcomes. What could go wrong setting fiscal policy around somebody that has no idea what they're talking about.

I mean seriously I gave you ten sources showing exactly why I think what I do, and your response is a finger snap and 'nah-uh'. It's pretty sad.

Only capital and labour.

Households are labour FYI.

Do your sources include the ATO?

The ATO doesn't matter. Legal incidence =/= economic incidence.

So we tax people on their salary and wages and their homes.

Thankfully we have a government committed to better outcomes, not rubbish ideology.

We tax farmers for the size of their paddocks rather than their productivity.

Land-value taxes are a tax on the unimproved value of their lands. So if the land isn't worth much they wont be subject to tax. But I'm sure you knew that and are just doing this to play devils advocate or something. I'm sure you also knew that land-value taxes can be heavily progressive, and that farmers generally wont be subject to much given that rural land is worth much less than urban.

Also taxes on productivity are awful ideas. For somebody looking out to help people it sure is weird you want to disincentivise the sole item responsible for a countries long-term prosperity.

 

[Aarglefarg]

42 of the 100 undecided voters at the People's Forum were more likely to vote for Shorten after the debate, 29 were more likely to vote for Turnbull and the remaining 29 gave no preference.

The Sky News 'People's Forum' votes are in, and Shorten basically ran roughshod over Turnbull. Not an enormous lead by any stretch, but as far as first blood goes for these 'debates', it's a pretty sizable one.

I just wonder how many people could watch it. I'm not a fan of Pay TV debates etc and though I watched it streamed on the channel 9 website live, I don't see it on YouTube yet.

 

[bobnowhere]

Thankfully we have a government committed to better outcomes, not rubbish ideology.

Lol, where exactly?

 

[bomma_man]

Better outcomes for who is pertinent question.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Also taxes on productivity are awful ideas. For somebody looking out to help people it sure is weird you want to disincentivise the sole item responsible for a countries long-term prosperity.

You really haven't thought this through.

Okay lets just walk through your grand plan of replacing corporate tax with land tax.


Lets take a plumber.
Taxable income of $120,000.
Pays around 28% tax.
Now he pays nothing on his income because he incorporates. yay
Does he increase his output? Not really.
He/she now pays land tax on his home.
Probably better off

Teacher earning $50,000
Still pays about $9,000 tax
Also now pays land tax on his/her home if they're lucky enough to afford it.
Definitely worse off. More productive? No

GP
$200,000 taxable income pays close to $80,000 tax
Easily incorporates his business.
Business pays land tax. If he's a locum then he gets off that.
Pays land tax on his home.
Probably better off. More productive? Cant be determined.

Local council
Do they spend money on sports fields and playgrounds?
Not now they have to pay tax on them. Bulldoze the lot and put in flats.
Community is worse off. Council is too. More productive? No.

Hancock Prospecting
$2 billion+ taxable income
Pays around $460m tax and resource rents
Now just pays land taxes ($460m worth? hell no)
Definitely better off. More productive? Let's check the price of iron ore before we decide that.

Farmer with agistment paddocks.
Taxable income is sketchy. Some years he pays tax. Some years he doesn't.
Now he's paying tax on the paddocks rather than his produce and agistment service.
Why have idle paddocks recuperating.
May be run out of business altogether. I'd say that's worse off.

I'm sorry but this is the real world that non-academics live in.

 

[darkace]

Lol, where exactly?

The current budget. Howard was as well until his last term.

...

Yea I'm done. You're wilfully economically illiterate.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

The current budget. Howard was as well until his last term.



Yea I'm done. You're wilfully economically illiterate.

Boy, you've really got your hand on it.

 

[darkace]

Boy, you've really got your hand on it.

I'm genuinely embarrassed for you. Your responses are so terrible they make me look bad by responding to them.

Generally when people are provided with evidence to the contrary they consider it. You just keep on doubling down in your little ideological bunker, which is impenetrable to facts. What's it like being identical to a climate change denier?

 

[D.Lo]

The current budget. Howard was as well until his last term.

Howard. Right.

In an economic boom as a result of external worldwide forces the restructure of the economy by Keating, Howard sold the house (Telstra, National Transmission Network, Avalon Airport, Melbourne airport, Sydney Airport, Brisbane airport, Perth airport, DASFLEET, ADI Ltd, almost everything else he could) to pay off the car (government debt - half of which Keating carried from Fraser). Then wasted a once in a lifetime windfall from the mining boom with cash splashes like the capital gains discount, massive, massive superannuation tax concessions, and increasing pensions.

At every turn what Howard did was purely idealogical, gifts to big business buddies, or to buy his reelection. Even the unpopular (and ultimately hamfisted and severely compromised) GST was designed to make him look like the reformer he clearly was not.

 

[darkace]

Howard. Right.

In an economic boom as a result of external worldwide forces the restructure of the economy by Keating, Howard sold the house (Telstra, National Transmission Network, Avalon Airport, Melbourne airport, Sydney Airport, Brisbane airport, Perth airport, DASFLEET, ADI Ltd, almost everything else he could) to pay off the car (government debt - half of which Keating carried from Fraser).

Privatisation is generally good policy. Only one that wasn't is Telstra. And saying Howard had no responsibility over the domestic economy is ridiculous. 'Everything was either a result of the mining boom, external global forces or Keatings reforms'. Ok guy.

And while I'm not a fan of surpluses in general, it's hardly the end of the world that he ran them. And it definitely allowed Rudd more wiggle room to manoeuvre with his GFC response (which wasn't entirely good policy, the second stimulus was unnecessary populism.)

Then wasted a once in a lifetime windfall from the mining boom

Mining boom was 2005-2013. How did Howard waste it?

Then wasted a once in a lifetime windfall from the mining boom with cash splashes like the capital gains discount, massive, massive superannuation tax concessions, and increasing pensions.

Most of the bad policy was implemented in the final term. CGT discount is only bad policy because of the disparity between it and our top marginal tax rate. Generally speaking taxation on investment should be eliminated entirely if possible. And you're saying increased pensions are bad?

Obviously Howard was responsible for a structural deficit, but the ALP had six years to fix it while rivers of gold from the mining boom flowed in, and we have very little to show for it from them either.

I'm never going to understand how people criticise Howard for the structural deficit but also give shit to the current LNP for going on about 'Labor's waste'.

At every turn what Howard did was purely idealogical, gifts to big business buddies, or to buy his reelection. Even the unpopular (and ultimately hamfisted and severely compromised) GST was designed to make him look like the reformer he clearly was not.

It's ideological because you decide to see it that way. Most of it was good policy. Just like most of what Rudd and Gillard implemented was good policy. And like everything Keating did was good policy. 'Micro-economic reform' is what Howard undertook because there was and is very little major reform to undertake in the Australian economy, other than a proper NBN.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

I'm genuinely embarrassed for you. Your responses are so terrible they make me look bad by responding to them.

Generally when people are provided with evidence to the contrary they consider it. You just keep on doubling down in your little ideological bunker, which is impenetrable to facts. What's it like being identical to a climate change denier?

What's it like being a ScoMo fanboy?
Have you left school yet?
What do you actually do for a living?
How do you get so far removed from reality?
Do your parents know you're up past your bedtime?