crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
Bam wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 3:48pm:
None of these methods are in any way unlawful.
It may be
correct according to law, but that doesn't mean it's
right. Hiding behind the letter of the law is a stupid argument that denies the possibility of changing the law. Why not consider changing the law to make these practices unlawful?
crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
Multinational companies may choose to domicile their operation wherever they wish. If you think for one minute that tax advantages don't enter the equation you would be incredibly naïve. If the Aussie government want to price themselves out of the market the participants will take their business elsewhere. Finding a legislative way to enforce IP and copyright holdings is something that has escaped legislators for decades.
It doesn't mean they can't try.
The European Parliament passed a law to make tax laws more uniform so companies have less scope to dodge taxes in Europe.
The problem is not solved by cutting taxes without closing loopholes because that shifts the tax burden onto everyone else. You're not going to get a 15% company tax rate in Australia any time soon because those companies need to contribute their fair share to maintaining infrastructure. Infrastructure costs are expensive in Australia because the country is large and sparsely populated. Who pays for that?
crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
This seems to be the major gripe amongst the poor sods around here that don't like the way organisations look for ways to reduce operating costs. Finding legislative and punitive ways around this will only blow up in their faces with a whole raft of unintended consequences.
That's a rather rash remark based purely on speculation with no supporting evidence. Do you really think that it's impossible to increase revenue by closing loopholes? Do you really think that multinational corporations making billions in Australia will stop doing business here because laws are changed to make them pay tax? That is unlikely. A typical tax-paying Australian corporation makes 10% profit on their gross revenue and so ends up paying 3% of their revenue in company tax. If another company is dodging tax and those tax dodges get closed down, they will go from keeping 100% of their revenue (before expenses) to keeping about 97% of it. Hardly cause to shut their doors in Australia and ending up with no revenue at all!
crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
The simple fact is that local corporate taxes are out of kilter with international practices.
The workers are the ones that bear most of the burden of corporate taxation. There is no benefit in chasing it.
So you're just throwing your hands in the air and giving up?
crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
Corporate taxes need to come down.
And who is going to pay for that? The workers, the ones who rely on government services or the companies themselves?
If you want to cut company taxes, it is best funded by the companies themselves so the tax burden is not shifted on to other tax cohorts. The fairest way of finding the funds to cut company taxes is closing corporate tax loopholes, abolishing unnecessary corporate tax deductions and cutting spending on corporate welfare. What are all these loopholes? I don't know of course, but who does? Nobody, not even the accountants for the companies themselves. That's why we had a Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance this year. Even our legislators didn't know. But if we do find tax loopholes, why leave them open?
crocodile wrote on Dec 21
st, 2015 at 7:47pm:
Miraculously, the xfer pricing might just stop and workers wages get a shot in the arm as well.
So you're relying on miracles to balance the budget?
That's not going to work. Expecting companies to pass on profits as pay rises to staff? That's naive. If they were passing on profits, why has the wealth divide in Australia been growing for 20 years?
Forum
Pages: 
