Abbott's company tax cut is disingenous

First, let me make this clear, I am in favour of the lowest appropriate taxes for individuals and businesses. BUT, Tony Abbott's decision to cut company taxes in Australia by 1.5% is simply bad policy and worse, it wrongly appropriates the Henry Tax Review to justify it.

Why Abbott's use of the Henry Tax Review is wrong

The first of the key directions read:

Maintain the company income tax rate towards the lower end of the small to medium OECD economy average, with a reduction to 25 per cent over the medium term. This aims particularly to increase the level of business investment in Australia across all sectors, including foreign direct investment; promote more entrepreneurial activity; and reduce incentives for profit-shifting offshore.


So this would seem to support Tony Abbott...but wait, there's more.

Ken Henry also recommends sweeping changes to the tax system, including a land tax (and resources tax) and many other sweeping changes. So, Abbott's plan is to remove the resources tax, not add a land tax and cut the company tax rate.  That just doesn't stack up.

Abbott-nomics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve

While he explicitly named the Henry review to support this cut, I'm more concerned about the implied throwback to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's economic policies described by the great catchphrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". It didn't.

One of the big theories that Reagan used to support his policy was the Laffer curve.  This theory suggested that in some circumstances that a cut in tax rates would result in increased government revenues. Legend has it that one of his economics advisors, Arthur Laffer sketched this curve on a restaurant napkin.

Laffer Curve: suggests that revenue increases if high tax rates are cut

However, Laffer also pointed out that spending discipline is required in the short term, to increase government tax revenue in the long term.
The Laffer curve has been discredited for a long time. There are many papers that have been written to debunk the Reagan and Bush supply-side policies...yet Abbott thinks he can roll out the same discredited theories.

Spending cuts will be required

So, even if we put aside all of our misgivings about the Laffer curve, supply-side economics and Abbott's plan, there is one thing that can't be denied.

Spending cuts will be required. Even Arthur Laffer said so.

Tony Abbott. Be accurate. Treat us like adults. If you are going to cut revenue through company tax cuts, tell us what other revenue you will raise, or what spending you will cut. Reagan or Bush would.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

It affects me - that's why I must support the private health insurance means test

I want Australia to be more productive, more creative, more fair and economically successful.  Some of these goals require change - change that impacts on real people.

So, when the Gillard government proposed the private health insurance means test, I had to ask myself, does this fit the criteria? Will it make us more productive, or economically successful.  The answer is probably yes.  We need to afford a health system, we need a public dental care system, and for individuals earning over $83,000 or families over $166,000 it seems fair to reduce the rebate they are receiving for purchasing health insurance in return for a $2.4 billion saving over just 3 years.

And it affects me - so I can't very well argue for some changes that don't impact me directly if I won't support changes that do affect me.

Productivity changes affect real people - that's why we need them

If productivity changes didn't impact on anyone, then they are probably not doing anything.  At the moment, Australia is in a once in a century mining boom.  Yes, it's impacting on many industries.  Yes, a lot of people can't see that this is doing them any good.  But, the impacts are real, and they have the potential to transform Australia for the better.

If we want to preserve old manufacturing industries, who is going to pay for it? All of us.

If we want to protect old fashioned retailers, who is going to be affected? All of us.

If we want to continue to drive our economy with polluting, carbon-intensive fuels, who is going to be affected? All of us.

So, we need to embrace the changes that are needed and take advantage of the one in a century opportunity that we are being handed.

I might have to pay and we all might have to change

At the moment, my job isn't impacted by the changes to the economy.  It wasn't always that way - I've been made redundant when the Marketing industry went through change.  So, if you are a manufacturing worker at the Toyota plant, or a retail worker whose shifts are being cut, it would be natural to be concerned. 

For most workers, there are other opportunities.  95% of people who want a job currently are employed.  For the retail worker, you have sales skills - there are currently over 2,000 sales jobs being offered in Melbourne alone.  For the manufacturing worker, there are over 1,500 jobs in Manufacturing, Transport & Logistics in Melbourne.  Change can seem scary, but it's what we have to do as society changes.

For me, I have to pay more for my private health insurance.  I can't ask you to adapt if I won't.  We all have to share the journey.

Tony Abbott's position makes no sense

Given that I will have to pay more for my private health cover, I don't understand why Tony Abbott wants to give me a hand out. Here is his statement on radio...

"Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage for people who want to get ahead. So, look, private health insurance is an article of faith for us. We will restore the rebate in government as soon as we can.''

So, is he saying that if you are wealthy, we will give you more money to make you more wealthy? Huh?? Honestly, that makes no sense.

Or is he saying he wants to do away with Medicare, and just have private health insurance? That would make even less sense, and be even less equitable.

I'm really trying to understand his perspective, but frankly, I can't see it at all.  Then again, I can't see why Prime Minister Gillard insists on bailing out foreign car companies either ... but that's a discussion for another day.

Times are changing, and we all have to step up to the plate.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Why do Christians get a special seat at the tax table?

The Federal government is holding a tax  forum on Tuesday 4 October and Wednesday 5 October to discuss priorities and directions for further tax reform.  After all the reviews we've had, let's hope any reforms are good for Australia.

What concerns me is who is getting a seat at the table - particularly the special treatment for Christian groups.


There have been 20 invited participants representing the community. 6 of these are representing Christian charities. There are peak groups such as ACOSS and others representing housing needs, but there aren't any non Christian charities who have been invited.


Tax exempt status for religious organizations

This skew in attendees matters a lot.

First, in any fearless review of Australia's tax system we must look at the tax exempt status of religious groups. Why they receive this special privilege is beyond me. And with 6 invited Christians on the forum the government is sending a clear message - "you are important and we won't be touching your tax exemption"

Next, these groups all have the same worldview due to their Christian beliefs. Sure, there are lots of business leaders at the forum to present a business viewpoint, but among community leaders there are vast differences. So, why invite 6 groups representing the same ideals and broadly the same people?

Apply to be an attendee

There is one thing you can do. There are still 12 places available for community participants. Expressions of interest close this Friday 12 August. So apply.

The 6 Christian charities invited to the tax forum all do good work for the community. But Australia is all for a fair go - not for making one religious group more important than the rest of us. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S