Choices, choices

21 comments on “Choices, choices ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Deadly_NZ 1

   1 April 2011 at 2:44 pm

   And Shonkey can piss off back to HAWAII replete in the knowledge that he got to fuck up a whole country. Maybe he can have parties and compare notes with Mugabe and co.
2. mcflock 2

   1 April 2011 at 3:18 pm

   Heh – not a bad name for him: the Merrill Lynch Mugabe
3. tc 3

   1 April 2011 at 4:48 pm

   Voting this lot in was the equivalent of believing a bank ad that proclaims to solve all your problems if you mortgage yourself up to the hilt with them…..which’s what’s happening.
4. PeteG 4

   1 April 2011 at 5:01 pm

   National cut the corporate tax rate to 28%, which costs $400 million a year

   What proportion of that cut is for foreign corporations? And how much of that is offset by the tightening up on “thin capitalisation” rules that particularity affect foreign companies?

   And how much is for NZ corporations, and how much for medium to small businesses?
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     1 April 2011 at 5:33 pm

     Hey PeteG National is making corporates richer by taking money out of services to people.

     That’s all you need to know mate.

     We are being gipped and corporate shareholders are winning as NZ’ers lose.
     • PeteG 4.1.1

       1 April 2011 at 5:59 pm

       How do you know that? It’s possible less tax paid means more into employing more staff, into R&D to develop more business to employ even more staff. Coupled with less risk employing new staff now that could be a welcome boost to employment levels.

       Or it could mean they can pay higher pay rates – so employees feel they are getting better rewards for what they do, alongside not being stuck with as many incompetent workmates due them being more easily filtered out during trial periods.

       There’s many possibilities if you want to look beyond simplistic ideological knee jerking.
       • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1

         1 April 2011 at 6:49 pm

         All sorts of things are possible.

         Tax is paid on profits as I understand it. So it’s possible that high marginal rates of taxation would encourage companies to invest more in research and hire more staff and boost staff pay rates.

         Or it’s possible that hiring and research decisions are made on the basis of things that have very little to do with taxation.
5. joe90 5

   1 April 2011 at 6:09 pm

   Choices like this are popular at the moment.
6. tc 6

   1 April 2011 at 6:12 pm

   Yes peteg it is possible like you and me winning lotto this weekend and the all whites winning brazil 2014……but ain’t human greed a bitch and historical corporate behavior suggesting you’re a dreamer.
   • PeteG 6.1

     1 April 2011 at 6:19 pm

     How well would we manage without corporations? And without foreign corporations? How would we invest in and implement large projects?

     Human greed is a bitch, but so is a lack of investment.
     • Marty G 6.1.1

       1 April 2011 at 7:00 pm

       Don’t be so melodramatic. This isn’t about abolishing corporations, it’s about whether to give corporates another big tax cut or invest in education, r&d, and borrow less instead. Put up a real argument for that, or concede you don’t have one.
       • PeteG 6.1.1.1

         1 April 2011 at 7:08 pm

         I was responding to the melodrama of others. Can you respond to my first post? No melodrama there, just some simple request for details, the figures are quite confusing.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.2

         1 April 2011 at 7:20 pm

         Good luck.

         BTW, have you had a poke around this site before:

         http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/

         The front page stuff at the mo is pretty non relevant, but the older stuff is fascinating.

         egs:

         http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=92

         http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=261

         http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=301
     • mcflock 6.1.2

       1 April 2011 at 7:20 pm

       “How well would we manage without corporations? And without foreign corporations? How would we invest in and implement large projects? ”

       I love that – you take “oh, maybe we should have a tax burden comparable to the rest of the OECD rather than begging graduates (who we chased overseas with shit wages, poor conditions and student loan) to pay back what they promised to pay for what we got for free” and turn it into a categorical “comrades, all corporate private enterprise must be eliminated”.

       And pretend you’re debating honestly and rationally.
       • PeteG 6.1.2.1

         1 April 2011 at 7:30 pm

         Are you being honest? I don’t recall ever seeing the quote you claim I have taken, and I have not said anything like what you attribute I have turned it in to.

         What is the average OECD corporate tax rate? This suggests we are still above it:

         But the AI Group yesterday said these figures were from 2006. It said subsequent cuts in corporate tax rates in other OECD countries since then had pushed the OECD average rate down to 26 per cent.

         In a paper released yesterday, AI Group said company tax rates in the past four years had been cut in 16 OECD countries.

         Among the OECD countries, only five countries had company tax rates higher than Australia’s (30%) – the US, France, Germany, Japan and Belgium – while 22 OECD countries had corporate tax rates lower than Australia.
         • Lanthanide 6.1.2.1.1

           1 April 2011 at 7:43 pm

           Yeah, the US, France, Germany, Japan and Belgium are all complete economic basket cases. No companies want to do business there because of the high tax rates – they’re all abandoning ship ASAP.
         • mcflock 6.1.2.1.2

           1 April 2011 at 7:45 pm

           Fair enough, it wasn’t your exact quote. This was: “How well would we manage without corporations? And without foreign corporations? How would we invest in and implement large projects? ”

           If we were without corporations, the obvious replacement would be 100% government control of all large projects. And chain stores. Which very near the communist end of the “government participation in the economy” scale, hence my use of the word “comrades”.

           As far as I can tell it was you who posited the eradication of all corporations. The post and discussion are about the choices being made by the government to maintain unaffordable tax cuts by cutting expenditure on services that that are essential to our long term economic well-being: education and research. Wandering off on your own tangent, were you?
           • PeteG 6.1.2.1.2.1

             1 April 2011 at 8:23 pm

             As far as I can tell it was you who posited the eradication of all corporations.

             I don’t recall doing anything like that. I think corporations can provide major benefits, and have plenty of downsides as well, there’s a lot I don’t like about what some of them do and how they do it.

             100% government control of all large projects.

             In how many countries has that approach been proven to work over an extended time period?
             • mcflock …

               1 April 2011 at 9:03 pm

               “I don’t recall doing anything like that”.

               Short memory?
               Here:
               “How well would we manage without corporations? And without foreign corporations? How would we invest in and implement large projects? ”

               Why did you ask those questions? Nobody else was saying anything close. This is not a debate between libertarianism and communism, it’s pretty much a rather bland discussion (with extremely serious repercussions) between the slightly-to-the-right-of-centre-left and the economicly unimaginative.

               As I said before, the post and discussion is about making corporations put up without their latest tax cuts, rather than making ordinary citizens (actual human citizens as well, as it happens) do without education.
               • PeteG …

                 1 April 2011 at 10:11 pm

                 I didn’t posit the eradication of all corporations.I posited the fact that they aren’t all bad, they can do some good.

                 And my original question on how much of the tax cuts applies to foreign corporations is a valid part of the “post and discussion”, and remains unanswered. Perhaps that’s because it highlights an exaggerated talking point. The corporate tax reduction is not simply bad foreign corporations versus poor us.
                 • mcflock …

                   1 April 2011 at 10:28 pm

                   So “How well would we manage without corporations?” should read something along the lines of “Not all corporations are bad”??

                   And I suppose “It’s worse than that – he’s dead, Jim” should read “He’s a bit ill but it could be worse”?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS