This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax.
The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds.
The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate.
The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators.
The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed.
The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow.
It is fairly complicated, but bear with me.
At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment.
It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made.
Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate.
Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so.
We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable.
For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive.
It has made living standards lower than what they could be.
Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money.
Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped.
And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits.
With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices.
Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players.
The tax system is one reason for this.
Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it.
True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow.
Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal.
The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business.
But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled.
If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences.
Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits."
At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax.
Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax.
The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest.
The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations.
If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue.
Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax.
The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds.
The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate.
The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators.
The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed.
The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow.
It is fairly complicated, but bear with me.
At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment.
It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made.
Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate.
Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so.
We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable.
For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive.
It has made living standards lower than what they could be.
Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money.
Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped.
And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits.
With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices.
Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players.
The tax system is one reason for this.
Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it.
True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow.
Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal.
The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business.
But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled.
If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences.
Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits."
At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax.
Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax.
The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest.
The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations.
If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue.
Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax.
The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds.
The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate.
The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators.
The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed.
The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow.
It is fairly complicated, but bear with me.
At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment.
It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made.
Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate.
Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so.
We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable.
For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive.
It has made living standards lower than what they could be.
Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money.
Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped.
And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits.
With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices.
Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players.
The tax system is one reason for this.
Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it.
True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow.
Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal.
The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business.
But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled.
If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences.
Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits."
At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax.
Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax.
The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest.
The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations.
If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue.
Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax.
The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds.
The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate.
The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators.
The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed.
The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow.
It is fairly complicated, but bear with me.
At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment.
It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made.
Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate.
Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so.
We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable.
For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive.
It has made living standards lower than what they could be.
Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money.
Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped.
And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits.
With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices.
Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players.
The tax system is one reason for this.
Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it.
True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow.
Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal.
The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business.
But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled.
If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences.
Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits."
At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax.
Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax.
The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest.
The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations.
If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
33 minutes ago
- 9 News
Tasmanian government pulls the plug on greyhound racing
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here The Tasmanian government will pull the plug on greyhound racing in the state by 2029, making it the first Australian state to phase out the competitive betting industry. Newly-reinstated Premier Jeremy Rockliff announced today his government would cease funding for greyhound racing in the state in four years' time, which will effectively wipe out the industry in Tasmania. "I'm concerned about the future of the industry and continue to be concerned about animal welfare," Rockliff said. The Tasmanian government will phase out funding for greyhound racing by 2029. (Getty) "It's time to draw a line in the sand and ensure an orderly exit from greyhound racing in Tasmania." The Tasmanian government said it would cut public funding by June 30, 2029. It will be the second jurisdiction in Australia – and the first state – to cut government funding for greyhound racing after the ACT banned it in 2018. Rockliff acknowledged the announcement would make some industry members "extremely disappointed" but said the decision was made as greyhound racing no longer aligns with community values. "As we deliver a measured and sensible phase-out of greyhound racing, I want to be crystal clear on my support for the broader racing industry, its participants, and our regional communities," he said. Premier of Tasmania Jeremy Rockliff said the announcement would likely disappoint the industry. (Alex Ellinghausen) "I know there are many participants in the industry who care deeply for their animals who will be extremely disappointed by this policy decision. "But the reality is the greyhound industry is at the crossroads, is in decline and it is increasingly clear it does not align with community expectations." A parliamentary committee will oversee the transition until 2029. Greyhound racing in Tasmania is almost 100 per cent dependent on state funding, according to the Australian Financial Review. It was reported the state was spending more than twice the national average to keep the greyhound racing industry afloat, with $7.5 million in funding alone in 2024-25. Animal advocacy groups have called for a national ban on greyhound racing in Australia. Racing Australia State politics national CONTACT US Auto news: Honda here to stay in Australia, announces growth plans.
ABC News
33 minutes ago
- ABC News
A no-confidence motion, an election and now another no-confidence motion. What happens next?
It's been a wild two months in Tasmanian politics. Premier Jeremy Rockliff was brought down by a no-confidence motion in June, but his unwillingness to step aside and Labor's refusal to govern with the support of the Greens sent the state to an early election. It was an election held more than two and a half years earlier than expected. After a lacklustre election campaign, Tasmanians voted for who they wanted to take the state forward. The only catch? The make-up of the new parliament is essentially identical to the one elected last year, with the Liberals on 14 seats and Labor on 10 seats, both well short of a majority. Mr Rockliff was re-commissioned as premier by Governor Barbara Baker on Wednesday, but it really only guaranteed him two more weeks in the top job. On August 19, it will be déjà vu all over again, when Mr Rockliff faces a motion of no-confidence moved by Labor. Is Labor really trying to form a government with just 10 of the required 18 seats? They sure are. Labor received a statewide first preference vote of just 25.9 per cent, a drop of 3.1 per cent. And its leader Dean Winter received less than a quota in his own right, elected fifth [out of seven seats] to the southern seat of Franklin. But that hasn't been enough to stop the party from dreaming of being in government for the first time since 2014. Because the Liberals haven't signed supply and confidence deals with enough crossbenchers to lock in support on the floor of the lower house, Mr Winter has started aggressively courting the independents himself. He argues Tasmania is better off under a Labor government. He says Labor has a plan to restore the state's budget, rather than a Liberal government that until extremely recently had not even hinted there was a problem, despite Treasury's pre-election financial outlook predicting net debt would rise to almost $13 billion by 2027–28. In short, we don't know. The Greens, who supported the no-confidence motion in Mr Rockliff in June, said publicly they'd prefer to work with Labor than the Liberals. But they've been largely frozen out by a Labor Party that keeps insisting it won't do deals with the Greens. That lack of communication means there remains uncertainty about how the five elected Greens MPs will vote. "We have to do our job of fighting for the people that put us in parliament and voted for us. They want change from business as usual." If the Greens are on board, Labor needs three more of the remaining six crossbenchers to agree in order to form government. Independent MP Craig Garland has previously said he would vote for a no-confidence motion in the re-elected premier, blasting the Liberals' "arrogant" approach over the Marinus Link undersea power cable project, but said late this week that the door wasn't completely shut on the Liberals. "The Liberal Party may stand up. They may come to the table and say we got this wrong, we're willing to compromise, we're willing to sit down and make these concessions, and if that's the case, I'll support them," he said. "If Labor want to do it, I'll support them." The four other independents – Kristie Johnston, David O'Byrne, Peter George and George Razay — as well as incoming Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Carlo Di Falco have all yet to make up their minds. Lots of the crossbenchers are calling for the major parties to compromise on policies, something they've so far flatly refused to do. Every member of the lower house knows this parliament needs to last for the long term. So the motion, likely to be moved by Labor, will do two things: First, it will move no-confidence in Mr Rockliff's government. Secondly, it will move confidence in a Labor government. It's a bid to replace the government, not to send the state to another election. The Liberals made some big changes this week as they try to neutralise one of the key issues for the crossbench: the state of the budget. Deputy Premier Guy Barnett has been moved on from the treasury portfolio and replaced by former federal minister Eric Abetz. Mr Abetz's first act was to announce a new multi-partisan budget panel, which will consult with all MPs and stakeholders about their plans to put the budget back in the black, and rein in the debt. And while Mr Rockliff and Mr Barnett insisted the budget was "on a sensible pathway to surplus" and the debt at sustainable levels, Mr Abetz was much more circumspect. His press conference on Friday was littered with phrases such as "budget repair" and bringing "the budget back into shape". "Clearly the situation does require rectifying … I think all of us understand and realise that there is a budget imperative that needs to be addressed and that will be my challenge," Mr Abetz said. Labor met with the five independents on Thursday, and is pointing towards policies it has in common with most crossbenchers, spruiking its new suite of policies to include integrity in politics, including replacing the Integrity Commission with a new anti-corruption commission, and strengthening right-to-information laws. The party intends to release its plans on other policy areas in coming days. It's likely we won't know which party has convinced enough crossbenchers to side with it until state parliament resumes on August 19. And the nation again watches closely as parliamentarians debate who should lead the state going forward.
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Australia and NZ enter new era of alliance amid rising global instability
Australia and New Zealand are entering a new era of co-operation as leaders from both nations embrace shared values in an increasingly turbulent world. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is in Queenstown for a two-day meeting with his New Zealand counterpart Christopher Luxon, marking his second time crossing the Tasman as leader after last visiting in 2023. In a show of the bond between the two nations, Luxon warmly embraced the Australian prime minister as they met on Saturday for leadership talks. The first day centred on unity between the two nations and how they can co-operate on various issues, including safeguarding security and prosperity in an increasingly uncertain geo-strategic environment. This included committing to further integrating the two nations' economies in the 'most unpredictable and dangerous' strategic environment in decades. Foreign policy challenges relating to dealing with China, the United States and China's encroachment in the South Pacific region would be agenda-topping issues during the talks, University of Otago politics researcher Nicholas Khoo said. Both leaders agreed that competition between the world's superpowers, China and the US, needed to be managed, and continued dialogue was important to reduce risks of misunderstanding, miscalculation, escalation and conflict in the Pacific region. China was the main topic on everyone's lips, with the pair discussing their grave concerns over its increasingly 'dangerous and provocative' behaviour in the South China Sea. Luxon said the Asian superpower was a significant player in the world and a permanent feature of global affairs. 'We have an approach which is about co-operating where we can ... We disagree where we must. We have different systems, different values,' he said, which Albanese echoed. Both leaders praised work to strengthen military co-operation, which Prof Khoo said was appropriate given the increasing uncertainty in international politics. 'It's an area where we could legitimately expect to see very real progress,' he told AAP. Prof Khoo said this meeting showed the two neighbours' 'steady build-up' of co-operation, which he said didn't exist until two years ago. ''This is, in some aspects, a new era of co-operation, which is a positive development for both sides,' he said. Prof Khoo said New Zealand only had one alliance partner in Australia, and this summit showed its investment in that relationship. 'In these very turbulent times, this is one of the linchpins of regional security that deserves the attention,' he said. The Australian and New Zealand standards bodies have also announced a new agreement to renew joint standards arrangements, which will streamline regulations for certain sectors, including construction, healthcare and manufacturing, to boost economic growth. In a sign of closer ties, Albanese joked about going for a 'cuddle' as both leaders sauntered off after the media conference arm-in-arm, laughing.
