Support NeoGAF

[Fredescu]

I'm normally a fan of crikey, but that's not a good article. There are many, many studies showing the burden of company tax falls on workers.

Link em? What benefits workers more is other workers with money to spend.

And even if we accept it majority falls on capital, it's still the least efficient federal tax. CGT is almost entirely paid by the rich, and it's far more efficient. Cutting company tax for CGT would be a pareto improvement without affecting the progressivity of the tax system at all.

The problem with arguing about the efficiency of one tax vs another is you need be prepared to sell a tax hike along with your tax cut, which is never the case these days. In almost all cases, including this one, a tax cut is revenue that is gone for ever and discussions about whether this or that tax is efficient is just sophistry to cover for a "small government" ideology.

I also don't think the location of people's hearts matter.

Maybe, but claims about what people really think is the point that refutes the "lie" of the save Medicare campaign.

 

[bobnowhere]

So. 2.3 billion in savings from 'welfare fraud'. Hmm.

All of a sudden found it behind the couch just in time for the election. Of course Welfare fraud is code for tightening requirements for eligibility and kicking people off it.

Jeez, ScoMo is a thoroughly unlikable character. Leigh Sayles just tried to get him to commit to voting yes on SSM if the plebiscite carries. Completely refused to say how he'd vote just weasel words like "he would respect the will of the people" then attacked Sayles for trying to get him to say words he didn't want to say. It's "yes" and "no" you fool, it's not that hard.

 

[elfinke]

All of a sudden found it behind the couch just in time for the election. Of course Welfare fraud is code for tightening requirements for eligibility and kicking people off it.

Jeez, ScoMo is a thoroughly unlikable character. Leigh Sayles just tried to get him to commit to voting yes on SSM if the plebiscite carries. Completely refused to say how he'd vote just weasel words like "he would respect the will of the people" then attacked Sayles for trying to get him to say words he didn't want to say. It's "yes" and "no" you fool, it's not that hard.

His interview with the 'Rookie Reporter' had me laughing. He mentions in that interview that his kids only receive money when the Tooth Fairy visits. So if his young daughters have to give their teeth up to get anything out of ScoMo, what hope does the country at large have (#rimshot)?

He also congratulates BTN on 'still being around' in 2016, since he enjoyed when he was a kid. Very cheeky of an LNP member to congratulate an ABC show for still being on TV.

 

[bomma_man]

I wonder if Malcolm is trying to make the electorate hate ScoMo to head off any future leadership challenge. All he's been used for is red meat, lowest common denominator scare campaigns.

What I read of shorten's press club speech sounded really good! It's a shame they didn't have that coherency of message throughout the whole campaign.

 

[Bernbaum]

I wonder if Malcolm is trying to make the electorate hate ScoMo to head off any future leadership challenge. All he's been used for is red meat, lowest common denominator scare campaigns.

What I read of shorten's press club speech sounded really good! It's a shame they didn't have that coherency of message throughout the whole campaign.

Without Scott Morrison around, who would be in charge of pointing to prop signs at press conferences?

 

[D.Lo]

I wonder if Malcolm is trying to make the electorate hate ScoMo to head off any future leadership challenge. All he's been used for is red meat, lowest common denominator scare campaigns.

Haha that would be amazing.

ScoMo has proven himself such a muppet. Who would agree to all the shit he has done? He seems like a patsy.

 

[darkace]

Link em? What benefits workers more is other workers with money to spend.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-101.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf

http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/66/1/ntj-v66n01p185-214-corporate-tax-incidence-review.pdf

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/faculty-res...s/direct-incidence-corporate-income-tax-wages

http://voxeu.org/article/who-will-bear-corporate-income-tax-increases

There are a few that find the burden mainly falls on capital, but they're sparse and generally start off by noting that their findings go against the weak consensus.

And the greatest benefit to workers is increases in their productivity, not after-tax wages. One increases the amount a worker can barter for over their lifetime, the other is a temporary increase in disposable income. A corporate tax cut does the former.

The problem with arguing about the efficiency of one tax vs another is you need be prepared to sell a tax hike along with your tax cut, which is never the case these days. In almost all cases, including this one, a tax cut is revenue that is gone for ever and discussions about whether this or that tax is efficient is just sophistry to cover for a "small government" ideology.

I won't argue this. I think people from all sides get too caught up in the ideological nuances rather than a look at the facts. Personally I do think the government is too large, but there are absolutely things it doesn't do that it should (carbon tax, sugar tax).

Maybe, but claims about what people really think is the point that refutes the "lie" of the save Medicare campaign.

You could argue their true intentions all day long. We also know that Malcolm wants to implement a carbon tax. All we can really go on is their policies. Malcolm isn't Abbott. He will run on his policies, and will open discussions in other areas if he hasn't run on them. He's far more principled than Abbott ever was.

I think both sides have run good campaigns. They both have policies that will benefit Australia in the long-run, although I think the ALP have a better plan simply by virtue of their drive to price carbon. But the LNP will also benefit Australia, and all we can do is vote based on whose benefits we value more personally.

 

[luchadork]

He's far more principled than Abbott ever was.

Can you elaborate on this? I believe it to be the other way around. At least you knew where you stood with Abbott. He was a straight down the line conservative cunt and if you didn't like it, he didn't care. Turnbull on the other hand is this shape shifting political chimera who is willing to put aside his principles to get and hold on to power. The guy is completely machiavellian imo. He'll clearly do or say or pretend to be anything.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I'd take a man eating bear over tony abbott.

 

[darkace]

Can you elaborate on this? I believe it to be the other way around. At least you knew where you stood with Abbott. He was a straight down the line conservative cunt and if you didn't like it, he didn't care. Turnbull on the other hand is this shape shifting political chimera who is willing to put aside his principles to get and hold on to power. The guy is completely machiavellian imo. He'll clearly do or say or pretend to be anything.

He compromised principles to gain power, but he's stuck to the principles he's compromised on. All governance is compromise, that's how it works.

Penny Wong compromised on gay marriage. Gillard compromised on the mining tax. Abbott compromised on a carbon tax.

Malcolm might compromise positions, but he's going to stick to that once he's put it forward. There's a huge difference between compromising on your ideological positions through the democratic process and backflipping on your electoral mandate.

 

[r1chard]

He compromised principles to gain power, but he's stuck to the principles he's compromised on. All governance is compromise, that's how it works.

So yes, he's stuck to the principle of compromising his principles.

 

[luchadork]

He compromised principles to gain power, but he's stuck to the principles he's compromised on. All governance is compromise, that's how it works.

Penny Wong compromised on gay marriage. Gillard compromised on the mining tax. Abbott compromised on a carbon tax.

Malcolm might compromise positions, but he's going to stick to that once he's put it forward. There's a huge difference between compromising on your ideological positions through the democratic process and backflipping on your electoral mandate.

Yeah, I don't see how that makes you 'principled' though. Being principled means holding positions that believe are based on right and wrong and acting accordingly. I believe what you've described above is just an 'effective' politician. Not a principled one.

 

[darkace]

So yes, he's stuck to the principle of compromising his principles.

Yea look how ideologically pure the Greens are. Sure is a pity they haven't managed to achieve anything.

Ideological purity is for the powerless.

Yeah, I don't see how that makes you 'principled' though. Being principled means holding positions that believe are based on right and wrong and acting accordingly. I believe what you've described above is just an 'effective' politician. Not a principled one.

If you genuinely think principled means never compromising then this discussion isn't going any further. That's simply not a position I'm going to argue against. It's ridiculous on its face.

 

[r1chard]

Yea look how ideologically pure the Greens are. Sure is a pity they haven't managed to achieve anything.

Ideological purity is for the powerless.

Eating away at the vote for Labor as those fools abandon their ideology. Hmm.

 

[darkace]

Eating away at the vote for Labor as those fools abandon their ideology. Hmm.

Are you arguing there are a significant number of people who vote for feels over outcomes? Sure, why not.

 

[luchadork]

Yea look how ideologically pure the Greens are. Sure is a pity they haven't managed to achieve anything.

Ideological purity is for the powerless.

If you genuinely think principled means never compromising then this discussion isn't going any further. That's simply not a position I'm going to argue against. It's ridiculous on its face.

Maybe you meant to use another word that doesn't mean principled then?

Maybe you meant to use the word 'compromise'? Which means to make concessions to reach an agreement. For the sake of the argument, I'll assume thats what you meant. And if you ask me who 'compromised' more of their beliefs between Abbott and Turnbull, I will say that Turnbull has compromised far more.

 

[Fredescu]

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-101.pdf

From the conclusion:

A common assumption, based on theoretical models of tax incidence, is that capital bears the burden of the corporate income tax. Recent empirical work using cross-country data on corporate taxes and wages suggests reconsidering this assumption; labor may actually bear a substantial burden from the corporate income tax. While this avenue for research seems promising, several statistical hurdles remain before definitive judgments can be drawn from this new research.

Not very conclusive.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf

That's just a working paper reporting the outcomeof tinkering with a bunch of models.

Three years later in this 2012 report from the CBO: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...2012/reports/43373-AverageTaxRates_screen.pdf

"CBO has reevaluated the research on that topic, and in this report it allocates 75 percent of the federal corporate income tax to capital income and 25 percent to labor income."

http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/66/1/ntj-v66n01p185-214-corporate-tax-incidence-review.pdf

From the conclusion:

Relaxing the assumptions of perfect capital mobility or highly substitutable domestic goods and imports changes the burden allocation to indicate that, even in an open economy, a majority of the corporate tax burden, perhaps 60 percent, is borne by capital.

[...]

Given that the worldwide corporate tax should fall on worldwide capital, an alternative approach to determining the incidence of the current corporate tax may be to allocate the worldwide average to domestic capital and to allocate country deviations from that average as changes in the corporate tax, using the open-economy model’s estimates. Under this approach, more than 90 percent of the burden of the corporate tax should be allocated to domestic capital.

These aren't helping your argument so far. You'll forgive me if I don't read the others.

Outside of academia, you just have to think about what you'd do if you were running a business answerable to shareholders and you'd just received a bunch of extra income. What percentage of that would go into the lowest paid workers back pocket? It depends on the circumstances of course, but it would take an economy where labour is in high demand for that sort of thing to be common place. We haven't seen an economy like that for a while.

 

[shanshan310]

Classy. What century is this again?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-28/election-campaign-letters-make-gendered-gaffe/7550354

A number of women have contacted the ABC to say Liberal Party election campaign material sent to their home addresses has changed their surnames to match the man they live with.

Some of the women were married, some were not — all said they had never been registered anywhere under that name.

 

[darkace]

These aren't helping your argument so far. You'll forgive me if I don't read the others.

Yea you can read whatever you want and I'm sure you'll come to conclusions based on the evidence, not the other way around. The weak consensus is that in open economies corporate tax is majority paid by labour. That's what those papers actually show, I'm not really sure why you quoted them out of context to show otherwise.

Outside of academia, you just have to think about what you'd do if you were running a business answerable to shareholders and you'd just received a bunch of extra income. What percentage of that would go into the lowest paid workers back pocket? It depends on the circumstances of course, but it would take an economy where labour is in high demand for that sort of thing to be common place. We haven't seen an economy like that for a while.

I don't really have any interest in logicking my way to answers. Econ answers lie in maths, not in logical steps influenced entirely by personal bias.

 

[jellies_two]

No wonder some PMs age 10 years for every one in office, the stuff they have to say with invented conviction.
Turnbull reportedly tried this tack: the refugees are not so much his responsibility because the camps are not run by Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-responsible-for-asylum-seekers-held-offshore

 

[Omikron]

I don't really have any interest in logicking my way to answers. Econ answers lie in maths, not in logical steps influenced entirely by personal bias.

Economics is a math based science? Or am I reading that incorrectly.

Either way you may run into trouble though I think.

 

[Fredescu]

That's what those papers actually show, I'm not really sure why you quoted them out of context to show otherwise.

I quoted their conclusions. Not sure how that's out of context. There's nothing in the remainder of the conclusion sections of those two that contradicts the parts that I've quoted.

I don't really have any interest in logicking my way to answers. Econ answers lie in maths, not in logical steps influenced entirely by personal bias.

When you're modelling behaviour, you need to be able to explain your results. If you can't, you need to question your model. This isn't pure maths. These are complex models with all kinds of assumptions that may or may not reflect reality. One of the sections I quoted states that changing a couple of assumptions changes the burden of company tax on companies from 60% to 90%. You have to do a lot more than just rely on maths when the outputs vary that wildly. You have to question your inputs, and you can't use maths for that.

 

[Shaneus]

It's not irrelevant since that forms the bulk of Labor's claims. You'd be extremely naive to think "Malcolm Turnbull wants to privatise Medicare" is a lie. It is 100% true. It is also 100% true that he won't do it. Welcome to politics.

It is symbolic for the white anting of public health funding and you should be fucking pissed off about it if you support a public health system.

They won't privatise Medicare. But they'll privatise Medicare's payment system.

But Medicare is, almost in it's entirety, a payment system.

But Medicare itself they're not privatising. Because there's no way the Libs would try and get out of it on a technicality! Of course.




You just know when they say they won't privatise it, they're using weasel words.

 

[Fredescu]

It won't be privatised, it will just be brought under the umbrella of the Australian Border Force.

 

[darkace]

They won't privatise Medicare. But they'll privatise Medicare's payment system.

But Medicare is, almost in it's entirety, a payment system.

But Medicare itself they're not privatising. Because there's no way the Libs would try and get out of it on a technicality! Of course.




You just know when they say they won't privatise it, they're using weasel words.

Privatisating medicare would be if they stopped government funding of the scheme. The payment scheme is just the method through which they deliver government funds. Privatising the scheme isn't privatising medicare through a technicality. It's exactly what it sounds like.

 

[Shaneus]

It won't be privatised, it will just be brought under the umbrella of the Australian Border Force.

Ooh, maybe they don't privatise *Medicare*. But I hear they're changing the name to Malcare. And that's getting privatised.

 

[D.Lo]

Privatisating medicare would be if they stopped government funding of the scheme.

Howard privatised the CES by creating the Job Services Industry where the dominant player is now a very profitable American for-profit company, Max Employment.

The government pays for it, but private business gets the gains.

 

[darkace]

It's a great example of how not to write legislation with incentives, and also why government intervention in the market is fraught with dangers. That said, it's also not medicare, and is hardly a candidate for 'essential government service'.

'Privatise this' and 'privatise everything' are two totally different positions.

 

[Shaneus]

Such a painful interview to watch. Morrison really has just fallen upwards into that role.

 

[luchadork]

Econ answers lie in maths, not in logical steps influenced entirely by personal bias.

 

[darkace]

How to show you have no idea what you're talking about in one simple gif

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I still have no clue who I'm going to vote for come SAT. I lack the will to inform myself too. They're all shit. I think I'll just get my name ticked off this go round.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'm going to vote Labor but I really have no faith in them at all. It's purely a spite vote against the Liberal party who I absolutely loathe.

 

[Fredescu]

It's a great example of how not to write legislation with incentives, and also why government intervention in the market is fraught with dangers. .

Also why privatising government services that are so closely linked with potential policy settings is fraught with dangers. See also medicare payment system.

 

[darkace]

Also why privatising government services that are so closely linked with potential policy settings is fraught with dangers. See also medicare payment system.

These are two entirely different things. Using this logic any sort of privatisation is bad.

 

[Fredescu]

These are two entirely different things. Using this logic any sort of privatisation is bad.

A lot of it is bad, but no, that doesn't follow from what I said. If something is "fraught with dangers" it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it necessarily. Unless your previous statement was intended to mean that any government intervention in the market is bad.

 

[D.Lo]

It's a great example of how not to write legislation with incentives, and also why government intervention in the market is fraught with dangers. That said, it's also not medicare, and is hardly a candidate for 'essential government service'.

'Privatise this' and 'privatise everything' are two totally different positions.

You said

Privatisating medicare would be if they stopped government funding of the scheme.

But this is a counter example.

They privatised a government service, but still fund it.

And it's a system that now funnels tex payer dollars into private hands while using the unemployed as cheap labor through Work for the dole.

It reminds me a lot of the privatised prison systems in the US, some things should just be run by the government, no matter how seemingly inefficient.

 

[Fredescu]

some things should just be run by the government, no matter how seemingly inefficient.

Totally. Efficiency is often held up as some kind of inherent good, which is just garbage. An efficient law enforcement would track our every movement and easily prove certain crimes, but we hold privacy as a value over efficiency. Not to mention, privatising some things introduces a profit margin into the price of the service, which is itself an inefficiency in terms of outcomes.

 

[darkace]

You said
But this is a counter example.

They privatised a government service, but still fund it.

And it's a system that now funnels tex payer dollars into private hands while using the unemployed as cheap labor through Work for the dole.

It reminds me a lot of the privatised prison systems in the US, some things should just be run by the government, no matter how seemingly inefficient.

Healthcare is a unique market. It's not something that you can make analogies with from other markets. It's one in which the true value of the service provided isn't known by either the buyer or the seller.

I don't really like the current JSP's, although I don't know how well they did pre-privatisation so it's hard to make a comparison. I get the feeling it's a market that wouldn't see much success regardless of ownership.

Preparing people to move from long-term unemployment to the jobs market is a noble goal, but it's not easy to do.

 

[bobnowhere]

Game of Tones: Windsor is Coming.

Part 1
Part 2

 

[Yagharek]

We should rivatize everything!

How did they manage to forget the p twice AND use the incorrect Australian spelling?

They already sold it to an American hedge fund.

 

[Bernbaum]

$4 Whoppers on election day.

 

[Yagharek]

They should have polling booths at bunnings. Double sausages.

 

[munchie64]

I'm going to vote Labor but I really have no faith in them at all. It's purely a spite vote against the Liberal party who I absolutely loathe.

If you truly feel strongly about it, why not vote a third party? I'm fairly pro-greens, but it doesn't have to be them. It'd probably be better to find someone you agree with policy wise than being upset at a vote.

 

[Bernbaum]

If you truly feel strongly about it, why not vote a third party? I'm fairly pro-greens, but it doesn't have to be them. It'd probably be better to find someone you agree with policy wise than being upset at a vote.

Exactly. You can vote with your conscience and put Labor 2nd if you wish. It will raise the profile of the party that receives your first preference, and putting one of the major parties second pretty much makes all preferences on the ballot paper irrelevant, depending on which seat you're in.

 

[DJKhaled]

I still have no clue who I'm going to vote for come SAT. I lack the will to inform myself too. They're all shit. I think I'll just get my name ticked off this go round.

if you don't hate the poor then vote greens or labor. if you love business and hate the environment vote liberals or nationals.


EDIT: also guys, not sure if you realise but darkace is trolling you all, he has been on reddit for months calling people marxists and ignoring all studies and evidence that goes against his ideology.

 

[bomma_man]

Trolling as a totally reasonable middle of the road technocrat seems like a pretty boring troll.

 

[darkace]

No people have been ignoring my studies because Reddit is full to the brim of teenage brocialists. The Australian subreddit is literally just Marxists, I made the mistake of criticising Marx earlier while I was there and found out the hard way.

I'm not sure why you'd think it's trolling to be a slightly left-of-centre establishmentarian. Maybe you should leave the Reddit echo-chamber.

 

[DrSlek]

Today I planned out my below the line Senate ballot.

Holy fuck! It's a race to the bottom! Almost half of the parties are thoroughly horrible. It's like a fight to see who I put dead last.

 

[Bernbaum]

Wooooooooo sloganistic namecalling!

It's like I'm some sage-like soothsayer.

From 3 years ago: