That’s the real thing that should happen.
Yes it’s regressive, but you can do things to offset.
But the biggest tax issue coming up is the baby boomers are retiring and not paying any more tax, but health and aged service cost will explode.
Increasing the GST is the best way to increase the tax base and ensures baby boomers still pay their fair share. You can’t use your accountant to find loop holes, it just gets collected.
Ahhh so you’re an EFIList.
What’s interesting is that since Shorten won the vote for opposition leader in 2013, A Albanese has been nothing but fully supportive and fell in line behind Shorten, probably against his better judgment, because that’s what the party wanted.
You’d think that given what has just happened, Shorten would stay in a darkened room for a while but he can’t help himself.
Bill, stop interfering and p*ss off whilst your colleagues sort it out.
Wouldn’t go that far. It’s more nihilism with a decent old dose of hostility.
Imo, when considering the preference vote… the money invested by Palmer was the difference. If you remove Palmer from the election and there was no advertising… it would have been a minority LNP Government or minority ALP government.
Vic government to hand down the budget
Reckon it will be a blow out with Mr spendy, spendy Andrews. Will be interesting to see the impact of property downturn (not just values for land tax, but more importantly transactions dried up so stamp duty will be off)
Hope they can balance the books
Fark me. I appreciate the conversation but i just wrote a really lengthy reply and Blitz crashed and it didn’t post. Maybe another time.
Hmmm. If I were a conspiracy theorist…
That’s the whole point. We aren’t taxing profits here, rather cash flow.
It is important to understand the critical difference between profit and cash flow. In terms of corporate tax law, Australian companies only pay tax on their Australian profits (active and passive) and their foreign passive profits. With 1/3 of ASX 500 companies reporting an accounting loss in any given year (over the past decade), they pay no tax during that year. Plenty of cash is coming in, however, the companies are not declaring a profit. Targetting cash flow, on the other hand, means you tax cash coming in (receipts from customers) minus cash going out (paid to suppliers & employees) with the exception of loan repayments, dividends, etc. It is easy to fudge a P&L statement with creative accounting, but much harder to disguise a cash flow statement. That is why I always examine cash flow statements and give a cursory glance to P&L statements before investing in any company. It is amazing what you can see/find.
An additional benefit of a CFT is that companies can try and create a negative cash flow by boosting their investment activities. So, they invest in new buildings, upgrade equipment/technology, etc. This would reduce their tax liability. So, it actually encourages capital investment.
p.s. Looking at $25-$40 billion additional revenue (conservatively) per year by introducing a CFT.
JR for PM!
Is this similar to a transactions tax?
In the perfect world the defeated should just crawl away to die quietly, but you get into Leadership with an ego and it gets bigger as time marches on. The Media still come and ask you for an opinion, and your close colleagues still pretend to value you, though no-one else does.
No-one in Labor will follow the Shorten way now, his power is spent. Albo will not give a ■■■■, and Party Members will make there own decision, though it is Caucus who will really decide. I favour some-one like Ged Kearney as Leader, she is a remarkable person and easy to follow. But I fear it will be a contest between Albo and Pliber with Albo winning.
No. A transactions tax is basically what a GST is - a tax on goods and services. A cash flow tax (CFT) is a tax on accounts.
But my point was that if you tax a company like Woolies on its turnover, you would wipe out its entire profit (and I mean real profit, not some cooked up tax profit) unless the rate was minuscule. Their markup on goods is around 1-2%, so for every million dollars of sales, they are left with only $10-20,000 after paying their suppliers. If you set your tax rate at more than about 0.5% you’ll send them broke.
I’m not a doctor, but could tax be linked to return to shareholders?
This isn’t an easy question to answer.
First of all, I think tax reform needs to be broad and not solely focussed on a single element - such as GST. A government needs to introduce a package of tax reforms. And given how much tax big businesses and wealthy individuals avoid paying, I have massive difficulty reconciling a GST increase before tax reforms which target these two groups.
Like Albo inviting and feeding media speculation in the lead up those byelections
Turnover is a synonym for revenue - different to cash flow. Revenue is basically sales ‘before’ expenses are deducted. You are misinterpreting what the CFT would be applied on. It wouldn’t be applied solely on the sales number. It would be applied on the money coming into the company minus the money going out (this is the cash flow). Cash flow includes sources of income not defined as revenue. Revenue is a one way inflow of money. Cash flow equals cash inflows and outflows.
As for your margins stuff, you do know that Woolies have declared a NPAT of almost $1 billion in both of their last half-yearlies?
At least woolies pay tax in australia.