http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18388945/coalition-commits-to-1-5pc-company-tax-cut/

The Federal Opposition will today commit to a 1.5 per cent company tax cut from July 1, 2015 - a plan that will cost the budget $5 billion over four years.

Earlier this year, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott cast doubt on whether he would deliver the promised tax cut, saying the quantum and timing would be revealed closer to the election.

But today he will confirm it will be a 1.5 per cent cut, which he would deliver in the second year of his first term.

He will say that while Labor has talked about cutting company tax, he will actually do it.

The cut had been sold as a way to offset the 1.5 per cent levy Mr Abbott plans to charge big businesses to pay for his paid parental leave scheme.

It is not clear when the scheme would start.

and raise GST by 5%?

Private capital investment is the biggest drain on business, the Government should abolish it and put the capital back in the hands of its rightful owners, the Australian people...

Maqqa wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:35am:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18388945/coalition-commits-to-1-5pc-company-tax-cut/ The Federal Opposition will today commit to a 1.5 per cent company tax cut from July 1, 2015 - a plan that will cost the budget $5 billion over four years. Earlier this year, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott cast doubt on whether he would deliver the promised tax cut, saying the quantum and timing would be revealed closer to the election. But today he will confirm it will be a 1.5 per cent cut, which he would deliver in the second year of his first term. He will say that while Labor has talked about cutting company tax, he will actually do it. The cut had been sold as a way to offset the 1.5 per cent levy Mr Abbott plans to charge big businesses to pay for his paid parental leave scheme. It is not clear when the scheme would start.

Big Fizz !!

Anything else ?

Something visionary or is that too much to ask :D

Maqqa,
both Abbott & Rudd have no policy about debt.


What will Abbott do when he can't pay all the public servants?


answer:

He'll borrow $100 million per day just like Rudd.

Example:

http://www.tfga.com.au/in-the-news/from-the-ceo/end-our-state-of-dysfunction/


Quote:

However, it is time we all acknowledged the elephant in the room. Tasmania’s economic elephant is called structural dysfunction. In its simplest terms, this means that one-third of our potential workforce is in the public service, one-third is on social welfare, the other third is in private enterprise.

What will Abbott do about it?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:49am:

Example: http://www.tfga.com.au/in-the-news/from-the-ceo/end-our-state-of-dysfunction/ Quote: However, it is time we all acknowledged the elephant in the room. Tasmania’s economic elephant is called structural dysfunction. In its simplest terms, this means that one-third of our potential workforce is in the public service,one-third is on social welfare, the other third is in private enterprise. What will Abbott do about it?

the libbos will do what they always have done and will slash and burn and then pay more for a whole lot of consultant wordsmiths to write some sh.t on a bit of paper :(

Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble???

:-? :-? :-?

Maqqa wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:35am:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18388945/coalition-commits-to-1-5pc-company-tax-cut/ The Federal Opposition will today commit to a 1.5 per cent company tax cut from July 1, 2015 - a plan that will cost the budget $5 billion over four years. Earlier this year, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott cast doubt on whether he would deliver the promised tax cut, saying the quantum and timing would be revealed closer to the election. But today he will confirm it will be a 1.5 per cent cut, which he would deliver in the second year of his first term. He will say that while Labor has talked about cutting company tax, he will actually do it. The cut had been sold as a way to offset the 1.5 per cent levy Mr Abbott plans to charge big businesses to pay for his paid parental leave scheme. It is not clear when the scheme would start.

Maqqa

This 5 Billion that it will cost is that offset by any increase in tax revenue from any growth ?

You need to be tax competitive with other countries otherwise no on will invest here.

http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_4-2.gif

Tax rates, both personal & business are already low enough!

To lower the business rate, particularly in the current circumstances, would simply exacerbate the Deficit & Debt problems and cause a higher general impost onto the Public.

So, it would actually be counter productive and therefore IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!


 

Budget emergency !!!

Was that a lie

If not, how will this cash handout be funded?

perceptions_now

Yet you need to encourage investment.

You need to tax expenditure more and productivity less ...... that is what our competition is doing.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

perceptions_now Yet you need to encourage investment. You need to tax expenditure more and productivity less ...... that is what our competition is doing.

Fred,
The crucial issue is "cause & effect".

In the past, what you suggest has been done & the cause & effect has done its job, in the way anticipated.

However, the absolute basics have now changed and the anticipated "cause & effect" will now, not happen.

Look at interest rates, for a lead. The examples in Europe, the USA & Japan clearly show that although rates have tumbled to zero, that cause has not had the usual effect, as those Economies are still flat AND I would suggest they will actually start to Decline, over the decades ahead.

So, what I am saying is that lowering tax rates, not only won't have the same effect it used to, it will actually make matters worse, because it will shift more of an ever growing burden onto the Public, the Demand for all forms o Goods & services will Decline even further & faster AND Debt & Deficits will grow bigger & faster!

let me get this straight .... first he has a policy that announces a tax increase of 1.5%
then he announces another policy to cut taxes by 1.5%


He's much more clever than I gave him credit for, he is now able to claim he has two policies, which, because they counter each other, in effect mean he does nothing. .... more talkfest anybody?.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-?

reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes.

this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places.

Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure.

Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme.

Verge wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme.

Why is it unnecessary?

You dont think paid parental leave is a good thing?!

Verge wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme.

no company will be worse off and most will be better off.  I find it hard to see that as a negative particularly when the intention is to reduced company tax rates further.  This is just the first step.  AS a company owner, I am pleased.  Of course I need to make a profit first  :(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:42am:

Verge wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme. Why is it unnecessary? You dont think paid parental leave is a good thing?!

Unncessary increase is the key words.  The current system is adequate and fair.  I support the current system. 

I dont support a system that is increased by a further 8 weeks, and can pay people up to an additional $2,200 per week on top of the existing system.

Coalition pressed on how it will pay for company tax cut

    by: Ben Packham
    From: The Australian
    August 07, 2013 1


LABOR has refused to match Tony Abbott's promised 1.5 per cent cut in company tax and demanded to know where the Coalition will find the money to pay for it.

The Coalition says the proposed tax cut would apply to about 750,000 companies at a cost of $5 billion, helping to stimulate the economy and offset its paid parental leave scheme.      

Kevin Rudd today questioned the credibility of the promise.

“This mob run around saying, `We need another tax cut, without saying where the money will come from',” he said.      :(

“This is not being done thoroughly.”    



Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said: “This is money that will be recovered by increasing the growth in the Australian economy.


“We will also obviously be announcing, as soon as the pre-election fiscal outlook is released ... further savings on top of the more than $15 billion in savings we have already announced.”

However, Mr Hockey also confirmed the Coalition would not announce a final surplus or deficit position as part of its pre-election costings, because it does not trust Treasury's figures.

But he said the net effect of all Coalition policies would be clear by election day.

Treasurer Chris Bowen said the Coalition's numbers could not be believed.      :(

“What rigour will be around that analysis. Who will do the costings? Will it be Treasury? Will it be the Department of Finance, or will it be some accounting firm which they have used in the past, and has been fined for misconduct because of the poor quality of their costings?”

Mr Bowen said Labor would not pledge its own company tax cut.

“A reduction in the company tax rate , in and of itself, is a fine ambition to have,” he told the ABC.

“But it has got to be done in a fiscally responsible way. You have to outline how you are going to pay for it.”

Mr Abbott's $5bn PPL scheme, which is not fully funded by a 1.5 per cent levy on big companies, has been criticised as a “tax” on business that will force up retail prices for consumers and be a drag on business activity.

The start date for the company tax cut is designed to coincide with the introduction of the PPL scheme to ensure that the 37,500 businesses paying the levy - those with more than $5 million of revenue, or about one in 20 firms - will not face a net increase in corporate taxes. Smaller firms, which are not subject to the PPL levy, will get a tax cut.

Mr Hockey says the tax cut would make Australian firms more competitive.

“It gives business that certainty, that stability that they're crying out for which means they'll have confidence to create jobs, to have a go and grow the economy,” he told the Nine Network.

He said the Australian company tax rate was five per cent above the global average.

Finance Minister Penny Wong said the only way the opposition could pay for a company tax cut was to cut services or increase the GST.      :(

“This is a company tax cut that can only be funded by more cuts, more cuts to services, jobs, health, education for Australian families or alternatively an increase in goods and services tax,” she told the Seven Network.   

“It's kind of funny they're putting up company tax and putting it down as well to pay for the rolled gold paid parental leave scheme that Tony Abbott wants to put in place.”      :(

Verge wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:13am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:42am: Verge wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme. Why is it unnecessary? You dont think paid parental leave is a good thing?! Unncessary increase is the key words.  The current system is adequate and fair.  I support the current system.  I dont support a system that is increased by a further 8 weeks, and can pay people up to an additional $2,200 per week on top of the existing system.

so given that, what about the 1.5% company tax reduction for most businesses?  You don't think that will stimulate an increase inactivity?  An increase in confidence that there is finally a govt that is actually PRO-business and not simply pro-union?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:49am:

Example: http://www.tfga.com.au/in-the-news/from-the-ceo/end-our-state-of-dysfunction/ Quote: However, it is time we all acknowledged the elephant in the room. Tasmania’s economic elephant is called structural dysfunction. In its simplest terms, this means that one-third of our potential workforce is in the public service, one-third is on social welfare, the other third is in private enterprise. What will Abbott do about it?

Bump to the Libbos.

Kevin Rudd today questioned the credibility of the promise.

“This mob run around saying, `We need another tax cut, without saying where the money will come from',” he said.      :(    

“This is not being done thoroughly.”

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places.

Would be more logical to cut taxes for the workers since they spend more of their cash in the retail sector.

There again this tax cut is to balance Lib's baby breeding tax for business and not for the betterment of the economy.

It's abbott juggling deck chairs on the titanic.

wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Kevin Rudd today questioned the credibility of the promise. “This mob run around saying, `We need another tax cut, without saying where the money will come from',” he said.      :(     “This is not being done thoroughly.”

Quite strange to see you post that mate.

You are the King of putting up ideas and having no idea how to fund it.

You want (in short) -

1) More welfare for the unemployed
2) Lower prices
3) Free dental, healthcare for everyone
4) Higher wages for workers


So paid more, more benefits, lower prices.

Whenever you are asked "How would you pay for all this?" - the answer is "That's not my problem"

:D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Verge wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme. no company will be worse off and most will be better off.  I find it hard to see that as a negative particularly when the intention is to reduced company tax rates further.  This is just the first step.  AS a company owner, I am pleased.  Of course I need to make a profit first  :(

The benefit to small business will be one that will be enjoyed, but it is a bit double edged for the following reason;
Eg
Longy Pty Ltd makes a profit for the year of $150,000, and a tax bill of $45,000.  Director Longy decides that since he had a good year, and to get the profits out of the company he pays himself a dividend of $50,000.  This dividend comes with a franking credit of $15,000.

Under the coalition proposal on the same circumstances Longy pays only $42,750, but what that means is the franking credits will reduce by the same percentage as well.

So when you lodge your own personal return you wont have the extra franking credits when then means the tax payable by the individual shareholder becomes more.

The objective of a small business company that makes profits is to ultimatley have all those profits returned to the shareholders (usually mum and dad).  The lower tax means lower franking credits so there is no nett benefit as Mum and Dad have had less of their personal tax bill picked up by the company.

For big business the nett effect will be zero, but the shareholders will receive less of a benefit, as our franking credits have been cut by 1.5% but the government gets to keep all of its 1.5% levy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:42am:

Verge wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme. Why is it unnecessary? You dont think paid parental leave is a good thing?!

Greens support the Liberal model because it's a TAX on business.

The relationship between private capital and the working class is broken forever in this country, the state should stop subsidizing this filth, we will not collaborate with them.  Its time for the Government to nurture social ownership, because that is the only work environment acceptable.

Well it sure seems some of you guys, are quick enough to ask how things will be funded.  So its different then if its the other way around.      :(      

wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Well it sure seems some of you guys, are quick enough to ask how things will be funded.  So its different then if its the other way around.      :(

How would you fund all your demands for increases and lower prices?

The working class do not want to enter into work agreements with capitalists...we want ownership of the means of production...stop subsidizing capitalist criminal parasites....

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:49am: Example: http://www.tfga.com.au/in-the-news/from-the-ceo/end-our-state-of-dysfunction/ Quote: However, it is time we all acknowledged the elephant in the room. Tasmania’s economic elephant is called structural dysfunction. In its simplest terms, this means that one-third of our potential workforce is in the public service, one-third is on social welfare, the other third is in private enterprise. What will Abbott do about it? Bump to the Libbos.

Can't get a reply.

OK - what are both major parties policy on the number of public servants?

We are expected to vote for slogans -

No party is giving any details.

What will they do with all the public servant paper shufflers?

Verge wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 11:06am: Verge wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. Not when the tax cut is being offset by a "levy" to fund an unnecessay increase in government expenditure. Abbott has only done one thing, increased government expenditure in the form of paid parental leave over and above the existing scheme. no company will be worse off and most will be better off.  I find it hard to see that as a negative particularly when the intention is to reduced company tax rates further.  This is just the first step.  AS a company owner, I am pleased.  Of course I need to make a profit first  :( The benefit to small business will be one that will be enjoyed, but it is a bit double edged for the following reason; Eg Longy Pty Ltd makes a profit for the year of $150,000, and a tax bill of $45,000.  Director Longy decides that since he had a good year, and to get the profits out of the company he pays himself a dividend of $50,000.  This dividend comes with a franking credit of $15,000. Under the coalition proposal on the same circumstances Longy pays only $42,750, but what that means is the franking credits will reduce by the same percentage as well. So when you lodge your own personal return you wont have the extra franking credits when then means the tax payable by the individual shareholder becomes more. The objective of a small business company that makes profits is to ultimatley have all those profits returned to the shareholders (usually mum and dad).  The lower tax means lower franking credits so there is no nett benefit as Mum and Dad have had less of their personal tax bill picked up by the company. For big business the nett effect will be zero, but the shareholders will receive less of a benefit, as our franking credits have been cut by 1.5% but the government gets to keep all of its 1.5% levy.

true and an insightful response.  But t is only true if the profit is paid out in income and dividends. in this case it is ALWAYS the marginal rate that is in play rather than the company rate. in that reagard absolutely nothing has changed. it is and will always be nothing more than a lower tax on retained profits.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places.

As a company owner, longy, how many new employees are you going to hire with your 1.5% tax break?

:)

PPL....
Let's see how this works.


Quote:

The start date for the company tax cut is designed to coincide with the introduction of the PPL scheme to ensure that the 37,500 businesses paying the levy - those with more than $5 million of revenue, or about one in 20 firms - will not face a net increase in corporate taxes. Smaller firms, which are not subject to the PPL levy, will get a tax cut.

So, 1 in 20 firms are to have a 1.5% levy imposed on company tax to pay for Abbott's PPL.
These same 1 in 20 firms simultaneously receive a 1.5% reduction in company tax as stated.
Ergo......Revenue Neutral!!

The other 19 in 20 firms get a 1.5% company tax reduction, as promised.
Ergo......Revenue Negative!!

All together now.....

Where's the PPL money coming from???

:D

When the countries biggest problem is the fact that government income is going away making more go away is a great idea.

Another $5 Billion unfunded promise to go into the black hole list.

Australias future prosperity is threatened by privately owned companies...we have no hope of competing with China's productivity as long as capitalism is in the workers way....The Australian working class does not have a relationship with capitalism and no longer wants workplace agreements with them but collective agreements with worker owned collectives....

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

When the countries biggest problem is the fact that government income is going away making more go away is a great idea. Another $5 Billion unfunded promise to go into the black hole list.

You do know debt has spiralled 350% since 2007 right?

If anyone is talking about black holes it is where is all of our fricken' money going???

The Libs voted against the company tax cuts earlier this year and now they want to commit to another unfunded promise...yep MAGIC PUDDING ECONOMICS  ;D
Its no wonder they dont want to answer questions about where the money is coming from  :D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 3:14pm: When the countries biggest problem is the fact that government income is going away making more go away is a great idea. Another $5 Billion unfunded promise to go into the black hole list. You do know debt has spiralled 350% since 2007 right? If anyone is talking about black holes it is where is all of our fricken' money going???

So you support Abbott making it worse instead of reducing it ????

Lobo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. As a company owner, longy, how many new employees are you going to hire with your 1.5% tax break? :)

as a small business (micro actually) I wont employ anyone else at all but the point is that every but helps.  The money I will save will go to buying extra equipment which will help save other jobs. 

Lobo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 3:07pm:

PPL.... Let's see how this works. Quote: The start date for the company tax cut is designed to coincide with the introduction of the PPL scheme to ensure that the 37,500 businesses paying the levy - those with more than $5 million of revenue, or about one in 20 firms - will not face a net increase in corporate taxes. Smaller firms, which are not subject to the PPL levy, will get a tax cut. So, 1 in 20 firms are to have a 1.5% levy imposed on company tax to pay for Abbott's PPL. These same 1 in 20 firms simultaneously receive a 1.5% reduction in company tax as stated. Ergo......Revenue Neutral!! The other 19 in 20 firms get a 1.5% company tax reduction, as promised. Ergo......Revenue Negative!! All together now..... Where's the PPL money coming from??? :D

where did you get the 1 in 20 figure from?  AS a small business owners who knows a lot of other small business owners there are not that many I know with more than $5M revenue.

Granted however I think the revenue figure is the wrong way to go.  A high turnover, low profit business could exceed $5M and be liable but a low turnover high-profit group may not. A Subway Franchise might make $5M turnover (granted prob not!) but have a profit of a mere $50K while a small consultancy might have a revenue of $2M and a profit of $1.9M.

If this particular problem can be better addressed perhaps with a revenue/profit ratio of some other such mechanism I think the idea is good.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

The Libs voted against the company tax cuts earlier this year and now they want to commit to another unfunded promise...yep MAGIC PUDDING ECONOMICS  ;D Its no wonder they dont want to answer questions about where the money is coming from  :D

not quite true. Like so much other labor legislation the company tax cuts were linked with a pile of OTHER legislation that was unacceptable  It was pass them all or pass none.

but keep in mind that the GREENS voted against it... just like they vote against everything. How about you give THEM a serve?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

Lobo wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 3:07pm: PPL.... Let's see how this works. Quote: The start date for the company tax cut is designed to coincide with the introduction of the PPL scheme to ensure that the 37,500 businesses paying the levy - those with more than $5 million of revenue, or about one in 20 firms - will not face a net increase in corporate taxes. Smaller firms, which are not subject to the PPL levy, will get a tax cut. So, 1 in 20 firms are to have a 1.5% levy imposed on company tax to pay for Abbott's PPL. These same 1 in 20 firms simultaneously receive a 1.5% reduction in company tax as stated. Ergo......Revenue Neutral!! The other 19 in 20 firms get a 1.5% company tax reduction, as promised. Ergo......Revenue Negative!! All together now..... Where's the PPL money coming from??? :D where did you get the 1 in 20 figure from? * AS a small business owners who knows a lot of other small business owners there are not that many I know with more than $5M revenue.** Granted however I think the revenue figure is the wrong way to go.  A high turnover, low profit business could exceed $5M and be liable but a low turnover high-profit group may not. A Subway Franchise might make $5M turnover (granted prob not!) but have a profit of a mere $50K while a small consultancy might have a revenue of $2M and a profit of $1.9M. If this particular problem can be better addressed perhaps with a revenue/profit ratio of some other such mechanism I think the idea is good.

* As usual, when one quotes a source and doesn't link it, one can't find it again. Nonetheless, I will keep looking.

**The 1 in 20 figure did NOT refer just to small business, but overall numbers.
Where did you get the idea that it ONLY referred to small business?

The case is STILL that some firms are Revenue Neutral, the others are Revenue Negative.

Where is the PPL cash coming from???

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Lobo wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. As a company owner, longy, how many new employees are you going to hire with your 1.5% tax break? :) as a small business (micro actually) I wont employ anyone else at all but the point is that every but helps.  The money I will save will go to buying extra equipment which will help save other jobs.

So the 1.5%, if not reinvested, boosts your profit margin.


:)

Quote:

A high turnover, low profit business could exceed $5M and be liable but a low turnover high-profit group may not. A Subway Franchise might make $5M turnover (granted prob not!) but have a profit of a mere $50K while a small consultancy might have a revenue of $2M and a profit of $1.9M.

Maybe you need to send your figures to Party HQ.
After all, this is their idea.....

:)

There you go, longy.
The wording has changed slightly since this AM's version, but the gist is the same.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/coalition-pressed-on-how-it-will-pay-for-company-tax-cut/story-fn9qr68y-1226692592832

:)

Lobo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 7:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 4:26pm: Lobo wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. As a company owner, longy, how many new employees are you going to hire with your 1.5% tax break? :) as a small business (micro actually) I wont employ anyone else at all but the point is that every but helps.  The money I will save will go to buying extra equipment which will help save other jobs.  So the 1.5%, if not reinvested, boosts your profit margin. :)

and how evil is that... imagine a policy that might actually.. gasp... IMPROVE business profitability???  Might those companies (oh the horror) invest in increased capacity or might they pass it on the shareholders to spend in the economy?

what an awful awful prospect!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

Lobo wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 4:26pm: Lobo wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:53am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 7:19am: Cutting company tax by 1.5% will cost $5 billion PA in lost revenue.....The 1.5% tax increase on large companies will be used to pay for most of Abbott's PPL scheme with the rest coming from consolidated revenue.....With no other new taxes or charges how will Abbott fund this thought bubble??? :-? :-? :-? reduced taxes increases economic activity - that's a proven.  this could end up paying for itself in ironically increased tax revenues and higher employment and income taxes. this ladies and gentlemen is what a REAL economic stimulus is all about - not throwing money around and hoping some will land in good places. As a company owner, longy, how many new employees are you going to hire with your 1.5% tax break? :) as a small business (micro actually) I wont employ anyone else at all but the point is that every but helps.  The money I will save will go to buying extra equipment which will help save other jobs.  So the 1.5%, if not reinvested, boosts your profit margin. :) and how evil is that... imagine a policy that might actually.. gasp... IMPROVE business profitability???  Might those companies (oh the horror) invest in increased capacity or might they pass it on the shareholders to spend in the economy? what an awful awful prospect!

Never said it was, but the supposed objective of the 1.5% company tax reduction is to boost employment...

Now, let's face it, revenue neutral combined with revenue negative leaves us with zilch to fund the PPL.

If this policy of Abbott's is a sh!tter, and you have agreed that it is, how many more of his policies are as well???

:)


Quote:

Granted however I think the revenue figure is the wrong way to go.  A high turnover, low profit business could exceed $5M and be liable but a low turnover high-profit group may not. A Subway Franchise might make $5M turnover (granted prob not!) but have a profit of a mere $50K while a small consultancy might have a revenue of $2M and a profit of $1.9M.

longy.

;)

Another $5 Billon of unfunded spending is another $5Billion of debt borrowed to give business a bonus.

The tax cut is actually bad for shareholders. It will mean their shareholders end up with less franking credits thus reducing the benefit of their dividend by 1.5%. So it has no effect on big business but shareholders miss out.