12.04.2018 Views

Impact of businesses on the economy in Australia

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

less than $2 milli<strong>on</strong> turnover. The Coaliti<strong>on</strong> wants to do that for all <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />

but over 10 years. In <strong>the</strong> medium term both parties want to cut taxes for ma<strong>in</strong>ly<br />

for small <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g>, albeit to vary<strong>in</strong>g degrees.<br />

To answer that questi<strong>on</strong>, we first need a quick primer <strong>on</strong> why everybody (at<br />

least until very recently <strong>in</strong> some cases) agreed that cutt<strong>in</strong>g company taxes help<br />

workers and <strong>the</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omy more broadly.<br />

Roughly speak<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> “stuff” produced <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omy depends <strong>on</strong><br />

two <strong>in</strong>puts: capital and labour. Lower<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> company tax rate attracts more<br />

capital - especially s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>Australia</strong> is a small, open ec<strong>on</strong>omy. More capital<br />

means more stuff because capital is useful <strong>in</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>.<br />

Moreover, more capital means that <strong>the</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>al return to more labour goes up,<br />

too. That is because, generally speak<strong>in</strong>g, capital and labour are complements <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> process. More <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e makes more <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r more valuable at<br />

<strong>the</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>.<br />

Aside: forget all <strong>the</strong> jibberish you have recently read about dividend imputati<strong>on</strong><br />

and frank<strong>in</strong>g credits. That‟s a sec<strong>on</strong>d-order issue - <strong>the</strong> key is <strong>the</strong><br />

complementarity between capital and labour.<br />

This <strong>in</strong>creased marg<strong>in</strong>al return to labour means more jobs and higher wages–<br />

capital made labour more valuable, and labour captures some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> that benefit.<br />

This is why Treasury has estimated that two-thirds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> benefit from a cut <strong>in</strong><br />

company taxes flows to workers.<br />

Now, do small <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> or big <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> use more capital? Answer: big<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> (See here, page 3). So it is big <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> that will <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>the</strong><br />

amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> capital <strong>the</strong>y use <strong>the</strong> most from a cut <strong>in</strong> company taxes. And it is big<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> that will thus drive more employment growth and higher wages.<br />

To sum up. Small <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> employ lots <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> people. But <strong>the</strong>y haven‟t driven<br />

much <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> job growth <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> over <strong>the</strong> past five years. And a company tax<br />

cut w<strong>on</strong>‟t cause <strong>the</strong>m to stimulate employment as much as it will for bigger<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g>.<br />

We should cut company taxes, and we should cut <strong>the</strong>m for all firms. But it<br />

makes no sense to favour small <str<strong>on</strong>g>bus<strong>in</strong>esses</str<strong>on</strong>g> over bigger <strong>on</strong>es.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!