« profile & posts archive

This author has written 782 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

6 responses to “Cutting the corporate tax rate”

  1. conrad

    One can only wonder what the odds of both the PPL and the corporate tax-cut not being implemented are (and, for that matter, the Gonski funding) once they have to deal with reality after they get elected.

  2. Hoa Minh Truong

    The socialism way is capitalist beaten, the Karl Marx pupils have applied his theory wherever, but it belongs to the situation. The communist regime, the capitalist beaten could be bloodshed, they have used the title of class struggle, then kill, rob and enslave people. Likely in Vietnam, after took over Saigon on April 30, 1975 a Vietcong high ranking cadre, 56 years member, Mr. Nguyen Ho said:” their houses, we occupy-Their wives, we take-Their children, we enslave”.
    However in the democratic country as Australia, the Karl Marx followers couldn’t create the” bloodshed revolution” because there are the multiple political party and government could use the army, police as tool. Therefore, when they have government, the beaten capitalist is taxes, so under Labor government, people have been burdened so many taxes on carbon, mining, company, medicare levy, bank levy….Those reasons pull the economy down and people have to pay more the living cost.
    The company ( capitalist) pay less tax, they could do the business well, then employ more people, that promotes the economy growth. In the most freedom country, the capitalist is the key’s national economy, if not they move overseas and shut down, who will be lost job?.
    The Labor government has the debt tradition then they pinch the people’s pocket by taxes, in record, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating left behind $ 96 billion debt, now Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard’s administration created the deficit is up to $ 254 billion.
    I fought with the international communist Bloc in Vietnam war into the both battles: military and psychological warfare, and after Saigon failed, I was imprisoned for 6 years in 9 hell camps. Mostly, I spent my life’s time for studying communist and Karl Marx since 1970, so I would like to tell anyone the knowledge plus the bloody experiences about Karl Marx’s theory. I have felt so hurt while seeing some leaders of democratic countries who paid the respect to the Mao Tse Tung statue when they visit China, but Mao killed more than 65 million people. In the western states, there are some body respect Ho Chi Minh as hero, but recently, a Poland Newspaper, Polska News listed Ho Chi Minh is among the 13 massacres in 20th century, he killed 1,700,00 people.
    you are very lucky to live into the democratic country, so you have not know as well as the danger of Karl Marx theory, despite everyone could see the communist movement killed more than 100 million people since October 1917. The Karl Marx’s theory could cheat someone who have never lived with communist, the socialism is like a colorful fake cake.
    The most communist countries couldn’t race with the democratic states, because they destroyed the most potential elements in society, all to be condemned as capitalist, landlord and intellectual. China growth doesn’t come from the socialism, but US helped, if not China was the under development country.
    I agree some capitalist people are not good, they love profit, so country needs the law to punish the bad one. However, the Karl Marx’s theory is the most danger and fully cheat.
    In the democratic country, the wealthy people earn money, but they have to pay tax and help the working class job. However in communist country, the red capitalist ( member of communist party) who do nothing, but they have got anything from the people sweat.

  3. John D

    Labor’s response to the GFC was brilliant.
    Firstly, it made one off payments to people on low incomes who would spend it in Aus instead of saving it or using it to go overseas. Unlike the tax cuts to the rich that the LNP proposed the one off meant that the government was not committing itself to an ongoing financial burden.
    Secondly, it spent money on infrastructure. This created jobs directly, injected money into the economy and, once again, did not commit the government to an ongoing financial burden.
    Right at the moment, governments at both state and federal level are suffering because taxes and charges are not enough to pay for the things they should be doing to be done properly. In addition, the end of the mining investment boom means that we need to find some productive way of using the construction resources that are no longer needed.
    What the country needs is more tax revenue, not less.

  4. Russell

    Even Roger Corbett has said the government needs more revenue for infrastructure projects, so announcing tax cuts will be perhaps not as popular as it once might have been.

    Don’t know how the ALP will be able to criticise it because they’ve been boasting these past few years of taking lower tax than the Howard government.

    (W.A. state budget came down today: a big tax, borrow and spend on infrastructure program. So nice to see The West Australian describe it as “a tax-and-spend, profoundly un-conservative financial document”. Haven’t I been telling you that the Barnett LNP government was our best state labour government in living memory?)

  5. John D

    Russel: Your beloved WA government has retrospectively cut the solar feed in tarrif A responsible conservative or Labor government would not have done this because of the sovereign risk issues.

  6. Russell

    ” Your beloved WA government ”

    Now, now, John D …. not my beloved government at all, but just the best we can expect, and a lot better than the W.A. ALP would be giving us.

    While Robert would applaud the hike in land tax and the construction of new rail lines, most of us on the progressive side of politics would have been disappointed at the treatment of environmental issues. I can’t remember it getting a single mention in the budget speech. I think the solar panels thing was part of ‘energy’.

    Perhaps it’s growing old, but I don’t expect a budget/government to do everything I would like. I think, for progressives, there may be an equity issue in generous tariffs for solar energy, but still, I was disappointed to see that move in the budget.

    But overall, for an old-fashioned lefty like me, I was happy to see that in a time when unemployment is forecast to be rising, we have a government that will borrow big and spend on employment generating infrastructure projects which will benefit the community for decades.