<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gruen: Tax reform we can believe in? Count me in</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/13/gruen-tax-reform-we-can-believe-in-count-me-in/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/13/gruen-tax-reform-we-can-believe-in-count-me-in/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/13/gruen-tax-reform-we-can-believe-in-count-me-in/#comment-3239</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3239</guid>
		<description>I loved the irony of Nick Gruen writing not as himself, but rather as &quot;Principal of Lateral Economics&quot; to state &quot;why pay 45% tax when you can incorporate and pay 30%?&quot;... who&#039;d have thought Crikey was paying so much for a story as to need to treat it as corporate income?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a serious note, I endorse his suggestion that lower company taxes do help economic growth.  The two related effects he did not mention were:&lt;br /&gt;(a) &#039;greater compliance&#039; (increased amount to assess) as it is less worthwhile seeking to not declare income; and&lt;br /&gt;(b) lower &#039;transfer pricing&#039; disputes with international companies using (i) raw material transfer pricing, (ii) IP royalties and (iii) Head Office payments, to transfer income to other lower-corporate-tax countries&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Further, he did not point out that the lower the corporate rate of tax is, the less importance dividend imputation is anyway...  which goes a little way to address the issues raised by self-funded retiree Gerry Costigan.  However, the bigger issue is that the shares would do better with an ability to re-invest more of their earnings... with the result that the first significant taxation of them being when the funds are finally transferred into the hands of the shareholders.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But for a &#039;smart economy&#039;, we need to rid Australia of anti-investment taxes, of which payroll tax stands out.  Payroll tax was introduced after WW2 to pay for the public transport needed to get people to work.  Clearly it has failed to achieve that purpose... one may as well recoup that amount by way of time-of-day micro-billing on all major arterial roads at ONLY peak hours, to promote public transport and tax those who use roads at their most valuable time.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Property investment has to become more liquid like shares.  Better to tax the resultant capital gains uniformly and remove stamp duty.  The housing stock is used very inefficiently because people cannot easily trade-down and we FAVOUR non-productive assets, due to capital gains tax exemption on own home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I loved the irony of Nick Gruen writing not as himself, but rather as &#8220;Principal of Lateral Economics&#8221; to state &#8220;why pay 45% tax when you can incorporate and pay 30%?&#8221;&#8230; who&#8217;d have thought Crikey was paying so much for a story as to need to treat it as corporate income?</p>
<p>On a serious note, I endorse his suggestion that lower company taxes do help economic growth.  The two related effects he did not mention were:<br />(a) &#8216;greater compliance&#8217; (increased amount to assess) as it is less worthwhile seeking to not declare income; and<br />(b) lower &#8216;transfer pricing&#8217; disputes with international companies using (i) raw material transfer pricing, (ii) IP royalties and (iii) Head Office payments, to transfer income to other lower-corporate-tax countries</p>
<p>Further, he did not point out that the lower the corporate rate of tax is, the less importance dividend imputation is anyway&#8230;  which goes a little way to address the issues raised by self-funded retiree Gerry Costigan.  However, the bigger issue is that the shares would do better with an ability to re-invest more of their earnings&#8230; with the result that the first significant taxation of them being when the funds are finally transferred into the hands of the shareholders.</p>
<p>But for a &#8216;smart economy&#8217;, we need to rid Australia of anti-investment taxes, of which payroll tax stands out.  Payroll tax was introduced after WW2 to pay for the public transport needed to get people to work.  Clearly it has failed to achieve that purpose&#8230; one may as well recoup that amount by way of time-of-day micro-billing on all major arterial roads at ONLY peak hours, to promote public transport and tax those who use roads at their most valuable time.</p>
<p>Property investment has to become more liquid like shares.  Better to tax the resultant capital gains uniformly and remove stamp duty.  The housing stock is used very inefficiently because people cannot easily trade-down and we FAVOUR non-productive assets, due to capital gains tax exemption on own home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry Costigan</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/13/gruen-tax-reform-we-can-believe-in-count-me-in/#comment-3240</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Costigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3240</guid>
		<description>I hope Nic Gruen does more lateral economic thinking about dividend imputation. In this article he neglects the benefits it brings to individual shareholders and to the general economy. Abolition of dividend imputation would hurt many people. I am retired and self funded with about half my income from directly owned shares and half from my superannuation fund. The value of both sources and the income to me from them would be devastated if there were no dividend imputation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Abolition of dividend imputation would accelerate the fast falling stock market value of Australian shares. It would greatly reduce both value and income of most retirement funds. It would reduce the amount of money its beneficiaries can spend or invest in an economy which needs this spending and investment. It would even increase the number of retired people making applications for old age pensions, needing to sell their cars or homes, and unable to afford housing and medical care in their old age.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The money made available from dividend imputation is of great benefit to individuals, to retirement funds and to the general economy. Could Nic write more about that and about compensation for all three if dividend imputation were abolished?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Gerry Costigan, East Perth</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope Nic Gruen does more lateral economic thinking about dividend imputation. In this article he neglects the benefits it brings to individual shareholders and to the general economy. Abolition of dividend imputation would hurt many people. I am retired and self funded with about half my income from directly owned shares and half from my superannuation fund. The value of both sources and the income to me from them would be devastated if there were no dividend imputation.</p>
<p>Abolition of dividend imputation would accelerate the fast falling stock market value of Australian shares. It would greatly reduce both value and income of most retirement funds. It would reduce the amount of money its beneficiaries can spend or invest in an economy which needs this spending and investment. It would even increase the number of retired people making applications for old age pensions, needing to sell their cars or homes, and unable to afford housing and medical care in their old age.</p>
<p>The money made available from dividend imputation is of great benefit to individuals, to retirement funds and to the general economy. Could Nic write more about that and about compensation for all three if dividend imputation were abolished?</p>
<p>Gerry Costigan, East Perth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 465/475 objects using apc

Served from: www.crikey.com.au @ 2012-02-12 14:25:21 -->
