What metric are you using as a comparison?

Just deaths at sea? Number of people making it onto land?

-PB

Hey I'm 30 this year.

30 is the give a shit about politics age. :d

Both are equally bad.

50,000 made it to our shores and over 1000 died at sea.

Was it going to be anything else? :lol: It's just a pity there are some new protagonists but the same boring clichèd arguments who still can't back their rhetoric up with any sort of evidence or data.

Just a glib set of figures that don't take into account effective tax rates or global trends.

2006

Australia - 30%
OECD Average - 27.67%
Asia average - 28.99%

2015

Australia - 30%
OECD Average - 24.86%
Asia average - 22.59%

We are obviously well behind the OECD and Asian average, which is interesting because the left often point to OECD benchmarks in regards to things like education spending, welfare spending, net debt as reasons to jack up taxes.

A NATION CANNOT TAX ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY

The quote the OECD but always out of context. They would never point out any of the averages because we don't compare favourably.

Our Education system and health system is actually world class.

Thanks rusty for providing something to support an argument =d>

I actually support a small cut for small businesses, even maybe up to the $10 million that was proposed by the LNP :o It's just interesting that we're doing better than pretty much everyone of those countries with a lower tax rate.

You don't understand the purpose of taxation though and no one would suggest that increasing (or in this case not decreasing) taxes in ISOLATION (see I can bold and capitalise things too!) is going to lead to increased prosperity.

A NATION CANNOT CUT ITS WAY TO PROSPERITY

Edited by mcjules: 9/5/2016 11:35:10 AM

rusty - do you have any info on the differences in effective tax rates?

One thing you need to consider is that with a stable legal system, large, prosperous economy, we can afford the higher relative rate.

There is a lot of research that relative company tax rates are actually irrelevant in terms of attracting investment when the gap is relatively low. Company tax rates are one consideration among many when setting up shop.

I am not aware of any evidence that we have lost any sort of investment due to our company tax rate. If you look at that list of company tax rates by country, you will see that the richest countries have the highest rates. Its the premium you pay for investing in a stable political system, with strong rule of law.

The other point you are missing is that when the GFC happened, many countries cut their company tax rate to try to kickstart their economies. We never went into recession, so the need was not there.

By the way, I am not against business tax reform. I think there is a lot that could be done if we cut loopholes etc and reduce the headline rate.

But arguing that we are facing some kind of economic apocalypse, or "taxing our way to prosperity" is silly.

A COUNTRY CUT SPEND ITS WAY TO PROSPERITY!

You guys keep asking for evidence which is impossible. How can someone produce evidence of any business that decides to not set up in Australia because of the high costs involved? No doubt there are, but it is impossible to quantify.

What we can quantify however, is the loss of nearly all our manufacturing to Asia.

Most of the OECD also have stable legal systems, and a large market. In fact, some are members of the EU which is a 500 million strong market place.

I read something a while back that ours is pretty favourable, especially for Australian investors. I'll try and dig it up later.

Did I actually argue that though? I agree if you're big company and you invest in Australia you can expect to a pay premium, for now. But it is also essential that our taxes are competitive. As Asia's economies continue to expand faster than our with their massive markets and growing middle class there will be more incentive for big business to invest in these countries than those with restrictive labour conditions and high taxes.

Reducing the company tax rates to 25% over a decade timeline is actually a modest cut and as Asia continues to revise their taxes downwards we run the risk of becoming an unattractive investment environment, which is particularly risky for a small country like Australia which depends on foreign investment to keep the wheels turning over. Simply being on a big island and having politicians who are nice to each other isn't going to be enough to compete with the growing markets of Asia.

Spot on. =d>

Too many people think that business will look at Australia, when the can go to the EU, subcontinent or Asia.

We think we are better, but we are not anymore and we will fall behind the eight ball, if we aren't already behind it right now.

Australia has one of the highest effective tax rates in the world, something like 26%. Many countries with a higher advertised company tax rate pay effectively lower taxes then we do, once deductions and credits are factored in. If Australia is going to crack down on tax avoidance and not offset it with a corporate tax rate cut, such as what Labor is proposing, we seriously risk losing our competitiveness over the medium term, possibly even sooner. I think a Labor government would be an absolute catastrophe for Australia's investment and economic environment , they are proposing to divert money from investment and wealth producing aims and piss it up the wall on their social agenda.

And the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government inherited a structural deficit thanks to the shocking waste & pork barreling of the Howard government & a global economic crisis that was not of their own doing. Independent economic experts have repeated the current debt is to be laid at the feet of Howard, but because right wingers are, on average, less critical & effortful in their thinking, their brains struggle to connect things beyond a few years (or just they are unwilling). Additionally, the economic stimulus of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd was lauded by independent economic experts as staving off recession, that they stated would have occurred if Turnbull's ideology had have been followed when he was in opposition in 2008/09.
Now under Abbott/Turnbull/Abbott we have a ballooning debt, because the children are in charge, yet they try to blame the previous government, but won't blame Howard for Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.
The subsequent whinging of right wingers of an unfavourable senate doesn't wash as Gillard had to negotiate with independents in a minority government.
As mentioned previously, it doesn't matter because facts are irrelevant to right wingers.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 9/5/2016 12:25:31 PM

Firstly, I'm probably one of the few people here that is glad to have you back. It's a bit dull without you posting every Lefttard thought that comes through your head *bants.

Secondly, can you give an example of Senator Leyonhjelm denying science? I didn't believe the topic o science was on the Liberal Democrat agenda.

You've managed to post twice now with figures in them, you must have a source for those?

Why wasn't the Navy intercepting them?

Should Labour have had gag orders on Navy, Doctors and the Media?

-PB

Yes because we have health systems, education, superannuation, minimum wage etc.

We can't compete with slave labour lol.

-PB

FRIENDLY REMINDER: "The Budget will be back in surplus in the first year of a Liberal Government & every year after that" - Joe Hockey January 2013 (8 months out from the election)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbotts-about-face-on-surplus-guarantee-20130127-2dfn9.html

Unions. We have unions :lol:

Really? You wanted me back?
I thought right wing mentality is to hide truth, deny reality & silence opposition.

Leyonhjelm denies anthropogenic global warming & believes wind turbines cause infrasound sickness. FMD. Another one.
Its just he's flavour of the month for football fans because of his outspokenness on the Wanderers.

Watching Shortens speech on Sky News atm.

Quality policy, improving aboriginal teacher numbers. Explaining how it's paid for. That's what people want to hear.

And right now, on cue, it rains so the internet drops out.
I have no quality NBN to look forward to as the the Liberal Party want to cripple our economy & balloon our debt even further thanks to a second rate copper NBN, with its ongoing economic costs due to its downtime & maintenance & the longer term costs when it has to be inevitably upgraded to fibre. And the additional costs of having both pointless massaged enquiries (that denies the basic science of physics to 'obtain' the intended outcome) & its associated costs of delays in building.
Structural economic costs.

He is wooden. I can't believe his PR trainer hasn't noticed the glaringly obvious.

Maybe a plebiscite on gay marriage will help them to fulfil their promise of a surplus in their first, oops, second term......

Same-sex marriage plebiscite to cost $525m, PwC modelling shows
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-14/525-million-price-tag-on-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-study/7243298

Google man

That is absolutely absurd.

Howard/Costello delivered many years of record growth, budgetary surplus, and 10 budgets out of 11 with tax cuts to the Howard Battlers.

Now, if you wish to say that a technical deficit occured sue to falling commodity prices and the GFC, then that might be correct, but then come Rudd/Gillard/Rudd for 6 long years, who increase spending, make Australia less competitive, and drive Australia's deficit to $50 Billion.

They had 6 years to address expenditure, but they didn't. They increased expenditure. They introduced an ETS, making Australia even less competitive.

Abbott was in Government for less than 3 years, and he stopped the boats (under labour, 50,000 landed and over 1000 drowned), and signed free trade deals with japan, South Korea and China.

The LNP budgets have been addressing revenue and at the same time offer a tax cut in the middle tax bracket, as well as allow mother's who return to work to claim super credits to catch up, and reduce super tax offsets for the wealthy within the superannuation scheme.

The last budget was an election budget, which means that the LNP were quite kind. But when they are returned to office, then next budgets are going to be some bitter medicine, which of course is necessary otherwise Australia will be in deep trouble.

It's not possible for the Navy to intercept them. Our coastline is too vast for our small Navy.

What our border protection policy relies on is deterrence. If illegal immigrants are not processed in Australia, then this effectively cuts off the trade. That is in effect what we are doing.

Not for long though. Not the way we are going. If this continues for many years, then you won't have education, superannuation, minimum wages or even a job.