Tax Question for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer

Dear Prime Minister and Treasurer,

Can you please explain to us simple voters, why is it that a general company tax decrease will stimulate economic activity, job creation and wage increases, but a bank tax increase will also stimulate economic activity, job creation and wage increases?

How can a tax increase (bank tax) have the same effect as a tax decrease (company tax)?  Are not banks companies?  Are not the businesses that banks lend to and will pass on the tax to also companies?

Spartacus is very confused.

Can you please explain?

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Tax Question for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer

  1. Botswana O'Hooligan

    Its a bit like the GST JWH introduced that gave us taxes on top of taxes in some instances and had the government rolling in cash that they promptly wasted, and then they taxed us some more.

  2. mh

    I would not want to listen to Morrison try and explain anything. His favourite song must be I Cant Explain.

  3. sisypus

    You are not the only one confused Sparticus . It is obvious that the ornaments in Canbuggerup are also.

  4. Confused Old Misfit

    The simple answer is: “Because we know that you are stupid.”

  5. Neil

    and had the government rolling in cash

    I have heard that statement about the Howard govt a million times but have never seen any evidence. A quick look at the revenue figures from 1996-2007 shows no sign of huge revenue increases. Looks like Howard/Costello kept spending under control. Also unemployment went from 8% to 4% under Howard so that is a huge number of people no longer receiving the dole plus they are now paying taxes

    PS The bank tax is something Labor would do. The Libs have lost the plot

  6. DM OF WA

    The big four banks operate in Australia under a massive level of government protection and regulation, free from any threat of competition. They are quasi-autonomous arms of the Australian state and they seem to rather like this cosy arrangement. It is only right they should pay for the privilege.

  7. struth

    Its a bit like the GST JWH introduced that gave us taxes on top of taxes in some instances and had the government rolling in cash that they promptly wasted, and then they taxed us some more.

    What a load of horse shit.

    Sales tax was taken off and therefore less tax was collected in most cases.
    But if there is a tax and a lefty can’t see it , it isn’t there.
    A strange position for them to take when you consider their belief in glowball warmening.
    The revenue goes to the states.
    The GST really upset lefties who don’t want tax payers to know the tax they are paying.
    If GST gets put up we all know it.
    What do you think we would be paying on hidden sales taxes by now?

    Don’t come on here with that bullshit B O’ H

  8. I am Spartacus

    It is only right they should pay for the privilege.

    Right or fair perhaps?

    If, as espoused by the government, taxes aren’t paid for by companies but rather by shareholders, staff and customers, why is the bank tax any different. The bank’s aren’t paying anything. Their margins will remain the same. Bank customers will be paying this tax.

    Also, rather than running the money through the Canberra washing machine where only 80-85c comes out for every $1 that goes in, if the banks have such a privilege – just take it away …..

  9. Mundi

    If the banks are getting there profit by way of regulation, and that regulation can’t be undone, then yes it’s possible for a tax that roughly how back to the consumers to be better than no tax.

    However the real problem is bank regulation. It’s written so only the big boys can compete.

    I tried to see how I could loan money at the rba cash rate for my mortgage. The first step is over $250,000 for a special type of recurring audit.

  10. DM OF WA #2634750, posted on February 12, 2018 at 1:15 pm
    The big four banks operate in Australia under a massive level of government protection and regulation, free from any threat of competition. They are quasi-autonomous arms of the Australian state and they seem to rather like this cosy arrangement. It is only right they should pay for the privilege.

    Very true DM.
    The point stands though. How to explain why a tax cut for industries A – Y will increase economic activity, yet a tax increase for industry Z will…er…. achieve what regards economic activity?

  11. However the real problem is bank regulation. It’s written so only the big boys can compete.

    +100

  12. DM OF WA

    Investors love Australian bank stocks for good reasons – zero default risk and guaranteed dividends courtesy of the Australian taxpayer and the unfortunate customers who have nowhere else to go.

  13. RobK

    It’s written so only the big boys can compete.

    This is the case for practically every industry. A sturdy ring fence to competition.

  14. Rob MW

    Can you please explain to us simple voters, why is it that a general company tax decrease will stimulate economic activity, job creation and wage increases, but a bank tax increase will also stimulate economic activity, job creation and wage increases?

    Easy. Because…. stupid !!!

  15. Brinkin

    The big forgotten elephant in the room is dividend imputation that means to Australian shareholders a change in the tax rate means diddly scot. and this clown Morrison wonders why the directors are not applauding him.

  16. Squirrel

    And also please explain why an increase in a hypothecated tax which doesn’t, in fact, pay for all the health and disability services to which it is nominally linked, is terribly important and worthy dying in a ditch over, at the same time that the prospect of returning a little bit of bracket creep is being floated(?)

  17. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    If anyone here has investments with the big four banks they would already know that we are paying the tax not the banks. The week the tax came into play, the paltry interest paid on investments dropped noticeably.
    Surely no one is naive enough to think the banks would actually fund the tax themselves.

  18. flyingduk

    If Global warming can cause cooling, heating, drought and floods, why can’t tax increases and decreases be simultaneously beneficial?

Comments are closed.