Aren't you the one that was saying a few months back that companies should only be allowed carried forward losses for a couple of years instead of until they are eliminated by profits. Your attitude seemed to be that if a company couldn't get to profitability within a few years they should go out of business, even though things like carried forward losses are just simply a means of not taxing companies on profits that haven't yet exceeded their accumulated losses.
It was the chairman of the Bank of Japan in the early 50s who is quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that international division of labour made it meaningless to develop a local car industry. So the local makers made pommy and french cars under licence until they learned how do it themselves.
Thinking about that, I now believe that companies should be able to write off all their losses, but not in one go, but at a maximum rate of say 10% per year. ie they could only reduce their profit by 10% a year from accumulated losses. That would get them paying tax each year while still allowing writing off losses.
Having to pay taxes on income they haven't yet earned is going to kill most start-ups.
So you give startups a tax holiday.
I wouldn't call a company like Qantas a "startup".
2017-2018, the tax year just ended, is the first time it paid tax since 2009, although it probably won't be physically paid until the due date. It has finally paid off its cumulative losses.How long since they paid tax ?
Do you not even understand the basics of business. A start-up that hasn't made a cumulative profit since starting up is not getting a tax holiday. It's costs to date still exceeds the revenue it has earned to date.
Neither would I. It is a company that went through a bad time but has now been turned around.
2017-2018, the tax year just ended, is the first time it paid tax since 2009, although it probably won't be physically paid until the due date. It has finally paid off its cumulative losses.
So you give startups a tax holiday.
I wouldn't call a company like Qantas a "startup".
How long since they paid tax ?
Do you not even understand the basics of business. A start-up that hasn't made a cumulative profit since starting up is not getting a tax holiday. It's costs to date still exceeds the revenue it has earned to date.
Thinking about that, I now believe that companies should be able to write off all their losses, but not in one go, but at a maximum rate of say 10% per year. ie they could only reduce their profit by 10% a year from accumulated losses. That would get them paying tax each year while still allowing writing off losses.
The loss made by the company is a profit made by another . The net tax take remains the same, so the tax on the 90% is a windfall take and crippling to the business.
The loss made by the company is a profit made by another .
One of the basics of business is that shareholders take a risk and have to bear some of the downsides as well as the upside. If a business is profitable currently they should be paying some tax, even if they can reduce it somewhat from previous losses. The government still needs revenue for services and infrastructure that business requires.
The business that makes the profit may not pay tax in our juridisction so the net tax may be negative.
Yea, but that doesn't necessarily mean we contribute mainly with the ores and minerals. Those will run out one day.
There's quite a few ingenius OZ invention and tech. Such as that wifi/bluetooth patent from the CSIRO. There's a few biotech that I've heard of. Just that we as a country tend not to develop and specialise on them... leaving the few to stand all by themselves. Then soon enough they either die, gets taken over or move offshore to gain more talent, bigger market, additional scale etc.
"Advantages" don't just happen, at least in a country of our size. They need to be created and that includes keeping competition out until the home grown industries are strong enough to compete.
That's how all the world's big manufacturers started.
You know the part of Adam smiths “wealth of nations” where he says it would be silly for America to invest secondary industries when they hadn’t yet exhausted their ability to invest into primary industries such as agriculture? I think a similar thing applies here.
Sure, in a few hundred (or thousand) years we might have depleted our mining ability, but that doesn’t mean that’s not he best use of our capital and labour today.
And we don’t have to limit ourselves to mining, eg tourism, agriculture, services and many other industries can be done, we just done have to have the idea that we need our economy to be fully intergrated to prosper, and as a nation we can invest overseas also, if that’s the best way to deploy capital into a certain industry.
One of the basics of business is that shareholders take a risk and have to bear some of the downsides as well as the upside. If a business is profitable currently they should be paying some tax, even if they can reduce it somewhat from previous losses. The government still needs revenue for services and infrastructure that business requires.
But the net is the same, balance of trade is not the concern local business. If you tax based on balance of trade we would have zero business.
No I don't know because I haven't read it, all, yet
I know what you're saying... and Australia is an incredibly rich, and lucky, country. Just that the wealth doesn't trickle down to a fairly large chunk of the population.
The reason, I think, is because we have replaced our manufacturing jobs with... bugger all really.
There's the automation in mining and mineral exploration. The mainly flight by night kind of operations. Cutting of funding to higher education to grow that future innovative workforce.
So for most whose education and training doesn't easily transfer them to more specialised work, removing that manufacturing base will create generations of "unskilled" trades, "redundant" workers who either take an application with Uber or at Bunnings stacking stuff.
For those with capital... it's a lot easier to move their stash to where return is highest, more immediate. That's fair enough.
But I think that as a national strategy, or whatever you'd call it... often the best and most profitable investment are long-term, probably illogical and hopeless kind of capital waste.
It's a bit like a parent investing in their kids education.
The little bastards might end up learning nothing, should probably be more useful working at a coal mine or Maccas the moment they can get a tax file number... But if given enough guidance, good books... might end up being an investor or something
Or take two examples I read... When Thomas Jefferson decided to buy the Louisiana estates from Napoleon, many call him an idiot who will send the country broke. Same with some other dude's purchase of Alaska from the Tsar of Russia.
I mean, if those two investment weren't made, how will the US arms industry thrive and enable it to liberate the world to kingdom come?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?