Australian Economics

[1eyedtiger]

edit: though i am a little confused why profitable companies continue to push for lower wages, continue to get caught exploiting their workers and shift money offshore to avoid paying tax- surely they would prefer to invest those profits in Australia, by employing more staff and paying higher wages etc. this would have the same result of minimising tax.

It's very simple capitalistic economics. The main aim for any profit making business is to have zero expenses and infinite income. We all know that won't work and so we strike a balance which is in a continuous state of flux as vested interests try to push the balance in their favor. And no one is ever truly satisfied so on it goes.

 

[Giardiasis]

people claiming they self-distribute their tax is a complete load of crap. They dont put a deposit on a house for the homeless black fella, they give $5 to medicans sans frontiers go on a family holiday to Spain. Anyone who says otherwise is lying through their teeth.

So poppa wouldn’t value investing more money into his business? He wouldn’t go and purchase goods and services that then employ people in industries he values? He wouldn’t invest the money into the stock market or into term deposits to provide capital for other business to expand their activities?

Just say he did go on a holiday, wouldn’t he be then providing income to people in Spain? Just because you value a deposit on a house for a homeless black fella, why should your values override his? Especially considering it is his money, not your money.

 

[Giardiasis]

all of these arguments have been skittled time and time again.

Clearly they have not.

 

[Giardiasis]

agree. we should actually give more tax payers money to these multinationals. then we would have more jobs, higher wages, more taxable income and lower prices. cos we all know big companies put profit low down on their list of priorities.

If you understood my argument, you would understand that your suggestion of giving tax payer money to multinationals is the very antithesis of my argument. Stop intervening in the market process entirely! Money earned through work and money received for free provides very different incentives to acting people.

edit: though i am a little confused why profitable companies continue to push for lower wages, continue to get caught exploiting their workers and shift money offshore to avoid paying tax- surely they would prefer to invest those profits in Australia, by employing more staff and paying higher wages etc. this would have the same result of minimising tax.

I am a bit confused as to what you are saying here? I’ll try and address each point:
* why profitable companies continue to push for lower wages – because they want to make more profits
* continue to get caught exploiting their workers – you’ll have to be a bit more specific here, but I hope you don’t mean the classic Marxian definition of exploitation which is complete bunkum
* shift money offshore to avoid paying tax – I’d have thought this was pretty self explanatory
* surely they would prefer to invest those profits in Australia, by employing more staff and paying higher wages – they do invest their profits in Australia, and the less tax they pay the more they invest.

 

[tigersnake]

Clearly they have not.

Clearly they have. Its pretty much accepted by everyone except economic extremists like yourself. Lets be clear here G -man, you don't accept it, I understand and that is your right, but it is pretty much consensus that corporate tax avoidance is wrong and out of control.

 

[Giardiasis]

Clearly they have. Its pretty much accepted by everyone except economic extremists like yourself. Lets be clear here G -man, you don't accept it, I understand and that is your right, but it is pretty much consensus that corporate tax avoidance is wrong and out of control.

Where do you get this "pretty much everyone" nonsense? You don't need to appeal to authority, the arguments are easy to understand.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Giardiasis,

The issue with your argument regarding corporate tax is that the types of companies engaging in tax evasion do not want to invest in Australia, let alone pay tax in Australia. Profits go to shareholders. Look at the banks. They make bigger profits every year whilst making workers redundant and closing branches. That's real investment, not.

And what about the average, everyday, Australian wage earner? Do we not deserve tax cuts? Give tax cuts to wage earners and they'll have more disposable income to spend, to benefit themselves and business's. I don't have shareholders to give my income to so I spend it. Surely it's a win/win? Tax cuts for wage earners cost business nothing yet they benefit from increased consumer spending.

 

[Giardiasis]

Giardiasis,

The issue with your argument regarding corporate tax is that the types of companies engaging in tax evasion do not want to invest in Australia, let alone pay tax in Australia. Profits go to shareholders. Look at the banks. They make bigger profits every year whilst making workers redundant and closing branches. That's real investment, not.

And what about the average, everyday, Australian wage earner? Do we not deserve tax cuts? Give tax cuts to wage earners and they'll have more disposable income to spend, to benefit themselves and business's. I don't have shareholders to give my income to so I spend it. Surely it's a win/win? Tax cuts for wage earners cost business nothing yet they benefit from increased consumer spending.

Of course they want to invest in Australia, that's why they are operating there in the first place. If you cut company tax to zero, investment would go through the roof. Yes profits go to shareholders, who do you think they are exactly? Don't you wonder where your superannuation goes?

Yes the average Australian tax payer deserves to pay no tax. If you didn't have to pay tax, sure you might consume some of it, but you are also likely to invest some of it into a house, shares, term deposit etc.

I'm arguing that no one should pay tax! From a utility perspective it it leads to reduced economic outcomes then allowing people to voluntarily exchange uninhibited, and from an ethical perspective it is theft and morally wrong.

 

[Willo]

You got ripped off. The $30 is not his money anyway. By getting cash and not declaring it he saves at least $90 in tax. So next time bargain harder.

Personally I know the cash industry is exploited by too many welfare claimants. Yes, multi nationals need to be paying more tax in the countries where they source the revenue but the cash economy is a massive issue. What about the labourer on average wages - he pays his 10k in tax, claims some boots and laundry and gets 450 back as a refund. Where can he scam the system?

Yeah they all see me coming ;D
I'm ringing the bastard for a refund, mate of mine too. :boxing

 

[IanG]

Of course they want to invest in Australia, that's why they are operating there in the first place. If you cut company tax to zero, investment would go through the roof.

Trickle down economics has been shown not to work, it does not increase productivity.

 

[Giardiasis]

Trickle down economics has been shown not to work, it does not increase productivity.

Yeah the trickle down theory that government taxation will trickle down to benefit the needy is indeed a falsehood and it actually reduces productivity.

I get that's not what you were implying but really, what does trickle down economics mean to you, how has it been refuted, and what has that got to do with what I'm talking about?

 

[tigersnake]

Where do you get this "pretty much everyone" nonsense? You don't need to appeal to authority, the arguments are easy to understand.

pretty much everyone G-man. Pretty much everyone. There is no nonsense. Except you and the CFO of the big corps with head offices in Burmuda, Singapore, Caymens etc. I could cite a heap of supporting docs from very dry, very respected, very qualified, peer reviewed sources, but I couldn't be stuffed, and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Giardiasis]

pretty much everyone G-man. Pretty much everyone. There is no nonsense. Except you and the CFO of the big corps with head offices in Burmuda, Singapore, Caymens etc. I could cite a heap of supporting docs from very dry, very respected, very qualified, peer reviewed sources, but I couldn't be stuffed, and it wouldn't make any difference.

Lol, this isn't the GW thread. Peer review, gee whiz. Throw your worst at me, it will be like fish in a barrel.

 

[Brodders17]

Of course they want to invest in Australia, that's why they are operating there in the first place.

maybe, just maybe, to make money.

If you cut company tax to zero, investment would go through the roof. Yes profits go to shareholders, who do you think they are exactly? Don't you wonder where your superannuation goes?

Yes the average Australian tax payer deserves to pay no tax. If you didn't have to pay tax, sure you might consume some of it, but you are also likely to invest some of it into a house, shares, term deposit etc.

I'm arguing that no one should pay tax! From a utility perspective it it leads to reduced economic outcomes then allowing people to voluntarily exchange uninhibited, and from an ethical perspective it is theft and morally wrong.

yep. user pay for everything. footpaths, roads, parks, access to courts, police, private ambulances. no disability supports, no aged care that people cant afford, no mental health supports for people who cant afford it. child protection only involved when someone pays for it. user pays access to prisons (not sure who pays thought).
should work a treat.

 

[tigersnake]

yep. user pay for everything. footpaths, roads, parks, access to courts, police, private ambulances. no disability supports, no aged care that people cant afford, no mental health supports for people who cant afford it. child protection only involved when someone pays for it. user pays access to prisons (not sure who pays thought).
should work a treat.

G-man nirvana!

 

[tigersnake]

Lol, this isn't the GW thread. Peer review, gee whiz. Throw your worst at me, it will be like fish in a barrel.

lol. thats the point G-man, I fully appreciate it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in your mind.

 

[Giardiasis]

maybe, just maybe, to make money.

There's no confusion here, that is of course the reason.

yep. user pay for everything. footpaths, roads, parks, access to courts, police, private ambulances. no disability supports, no aged care that people cant afford, no mental health supports for people who cant afford it. child protection only involved when someone pays for it. user pays access to prisons (not sure who pays thought).
should work a treat.

Why do you assume that there will be no support for disabled persons, or people in need? Let individuals take responsibility to support people in need that they wish to help, and stop looking for others to pay for something you subjectively value. Even if there wasn't the level of support that you wish to see in the unhampered market, that still wouldn't give you justification to commit theft.

 

[Giardiasis]

lol. thats the point G-man, I fully appreciate it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in your mind.

You treat this like a relativist. There is correct economic theory and incorrect economic theory, the correctness of which is not determined by consensus but by logically deduced and consistent rational thinking. I don't think Austrian economic theory to be true because I subjectively deem it to be so, but because it can be demonstrated logically to be true.

That is why I know it is fish in a barrel because anyone that considers peer review to be important to economic theory has already made a fundamental error about the epistemology of economics.

 

[Azza]

Do you think that any level of taxation is needed Gia?

 

[Giardiasis]

Do you think that any level of taxation is needed Gia?

It is needed if you want to extort people while pretending you are doing it for their own good.