logo
‘We need a clear victory': Why the ASX doesn't want a minority government

‘We need a clear victory': Why the ASX doesn't want a minority government

The laggards
Afterpay owner Block (previously known as Square) shares lost 26.7 per cent] of its value after the digital payments juggernaut – also listed on the New York Stock Exchange – revealed first-quarter results that undershot expectations and lowered its profit outlook.
Corporate Travel Management has shed 10 per cent and Zip Co has tumbled 4.9 per cent.
'We revise down our estimates to incorporate tariff uncertainty,' said Citi Research analyst Samuel Seow of Corporate Travel Management in a note, although it retained its buy rating.
The lowdown
How much is Australia's sharemarket affected by domestic politics? AMP chief economist Shane Oliver and Ten Cap co-founder and lead portfolio manager Jun Bei Liu both said that there was not enough difference between Labor and Coalition governments to significantly shake the market on either outcome.
'If we have a minority government, then it becomes difficult. Nothing gets done. This probably would be the worst-case scenario,' said Liu. 'No policy gets done, then businesses don't want to spend, then obviously you have the confidence hit.'
Investors see the differences between the two main parties as 'quite minor', with Trump's tariffs to remain the dominant factor moving markets, said Oliver.
'If the Coalition were to win, you might see a slight positive reaction, because the Coalition [is seen as] more business-friendly than the Labor Party. But I think it would be trivial in the grand scheme of things.'
The 'less sensible, less rational' policies of the Whitlam government depressed the market in the 1970s, but by contrast, the Hawke-Keating government's deregulation initiatives oversaw the 'strongest period for shares historically', Oliver said.
Conversely, investors might be spooked by a minority Labor government that would cut a deal with the Greens, which would be seen as 'dragging the Labor Party to the left' and as less business-friendly, he added. 'The market will be particularly affected by [that].'
On the economic front, retail sales rose just 0.3 per cent over March, indicating that the consumer spending recovery has been weak, and undershooting most economist expectations, indicated AMP economist My Bui.
'The stagnation in March retail volumes suggests that the recovery will be gradual and limited, with most households still experiencing the impacts of the faster cumulative rise in price levels over the past few years (compared to wages),' she said in a note.
'There are now even more arguments for the RBA to resume its cutting cycle in May.'
S&P Global Ratings has lowered its GDP growth forecasts for 'most' countries and raised its US inflation forecast. It is now predicting 1.7 per cent growth to Australian GDP for 2025.
Loading
'A seismic and uncertain shift in US trade policy has roiled markets and raised the spectre of a global economic slowdown,' the S&P global economists stated in a research note.
'We see a material slowdown in growth, but do not foresee a US recession at this juncture.'
Overnight, Microsoft and Meta Platforms led Wall Street higher while Amazon and Apple released their results after the closing bell.
The S&P 500 rose 0.6 per cent for an eighth-straight gain, its longest winning streak since August. The Dow Jones added 83 points, or 0.2 per cent, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 1.5 per cent.
Apple's uncertain outlook sent shares sliding 3.8 per cent in after-hours trading. Amazon shares are 3.2 per cent lower in after-hours trading.
Loading
Microsoft rallied 7.6 per cent. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, also topped analysts' targets for revenue and profit in the latest quarter. It said AI tools helped boost its advertising revenue, and its stock climbed 4.2 per cent.
They're two of the most influential stocks within the S&P 500 and other indexes because of their massive sizes, and they weren't alone. The S&P 500 is back to within 9 per cent of its record set earlier this year, after briefly dropping nearly 20 per cent below the mark.
Still, plenty of uncertainty remains about whether President Donald Trump's trade war will force the economy into a recession.
The uncertainty has already shown up in surveys of consumers, which say pessimism is shooting higher about where the economy heading. On Thursday, a couple of reports about the economy came in mixed, following up on several recent updates that suggested it's weakening.
The fear on Wall Street is for a possible worst-case scenario called 'stagflation,' where the economy stagnates yet inflation remains high. The Federal Reserve has no good tools to fix both such problems at the same time. If the Fed were to try to help one problem by adjusting interest rates, it would likely make the other worse.
Tweet of the day
Quote of the day
'It's a heist.'
That's an executive associated with furious investors who raged against a $14 billion deal between Australian building products giant James Hardie and US group Azek.
The company's stock plunged within hours, but it would take weeks for the group to shred more than $6 billion of shareholder wealth as its investors woke up to the full horror of a deal that would transform James Hardie in ways they had not imagined.
You may have missed
By now, it's no secret that young people are the biggest voting group. While no demographic fits neatly into either the Labor or Coalition camp – or completely agrees on any given issue – it will be a relief for many young Australians to know they are more than an afterthought this election.
Neither party has been exceedingly visionary, but as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton jet around the country in a final scramble to cement their messages in the dying days of the election campaign, one leader will be tossing and turning far less when they hit the hay every evening.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links
Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links

Latest posts Latest posts 6.47am Trump to hike tariffs on India for buying Russian oil By Michael Koziol US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. In a sign of the strained relations between the two countries, India quickly branded Trump's move 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The threat, which has not yet been acted on, underlines Trump's preference for using tariffs for geopolitical leverage, and comes as his deadline looms for commitments from Russia's Vladimir Putin on ending the war, which has now raged for three-and-a-half years. There have been mixed reports about India's intentions over the past week as the US stepped up pressure on the world's most populous nation to back away from its reliance on Russian crude oil, which now accounts for about a third of India's supplies. 6.44am Tesla grants Musk $46 billion stock award Tesla approved an interim stock award worth about $US30 billion ($46 billion) for chief executive officer Elon Musk, a massive payout meant to keep the billionaire's attention on the automaker as a legal fight over a 2018 pay package drags on. The new agreement includes 96 million shares of the automaker that will vest if Musk continues to serve in the top post for another two years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The restricted stock has an exercise price of $US23.34, equal to the price in the prior compensation plan. The move underscores Musk's grip on the company, even as it struggles with falling electric vehicle sales and a slumping stock price. The world's richest person has said he wants a greater stake in Tesla as he reorients it around futuristic pursuits including artificial intelligence and driverless vehicles. 6.39am What's making news today By Daniel Lo Surdo Hello and welcome to the national news live blog. My name is Daniel Lo Surdo, and I'll be helming our live coverage this morning. Here's what is making news today: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has vowed to protect Australians from the 'tinderbox' of tension stemming from debate about the Middle East, saying he was blocking visas for potentially divisive visitors at an unprecedented rate. In an interview with this masthead, Burke said he 'did not care' if he was accused of stymying debate about controversial issues in favour of protecting social cohesion. US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. India quickly branded Trump's move, a threat that has not yet been acted on, 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The Australian sharemarket is set to grow on Tuesday, after Wall Street recovered much of the sharp losses incurred following Trump's latest tariff announcement last week. Trump has been critical of the US Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates unchanged amid concerns about the impact of Trump's tariff agenda on prices for American households.

Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links
Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links

The Age

timean hour ago

  • The Age

Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links

Latest posts Latest posts 6.47am Trump to hike tariffs on India for buying Russian oil By Michael Koziol US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. In a sign of the strained relations between the two countries, India quickly branded Trump's move 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The threat, which has not yet been acted on, underlines Trump's preference for using tariffs for geopolitical leverage, and comes as his deadline looms for commitments from Russia's Vladimir Putin on ending the war, which has now raged for three-and-a-half years. There have been mixed reports about India's intentions over the past week as the US stepped up pressure on the world's most populous nation to back away from its reliance on Russian crude oil, which now accounts for about a third of India's supplies. 6.44am Tesla grants Musk $46 billion stock award Tesla approved an interim stock award worth about $US30 billion ($46 billion) for chief executive officer Elon Musk, a massive payout meant to keep the billionaire's attention on the automaker as a legal fight over a 2018 pay package drags on. The new agreement includes 96 million shares of the automaker that will vest if Musk continues to serve in the top post for another two years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The restricted stock has an exercise price of $US23.34, equal to the price in the prior compensation plan. The move underscores Musk's grip on the company, even as it struggles with falling electric vehicle sales and a slumping stock price. The world's richest person has said he wants a greater stake in Tesla as he reorients it around futuristic pursuits including artificial intelligence and driverless vehicles. 6.39am What's making news today By Daniel Lo Surdo Hello and welcome to the national news live blog. My name is Daniel Lo Surdo, and I'll be helming our live coverage this morning. Here's what is making news today: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has vowed to protect Australians from the 'tinderbox' of tension stemming from debate about the Middle East, saying he was blocking visas for potentially divisive visitors at an unprecedented rate. In an interview with this masthead, Burke said he 'did not care' if he was accused of stymying debate about controversial issues in favour of protecting social cohesion. US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. India quickly branded Trump's move, a threat that has not yet been acted on, 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The Australian sharemarket is set to grow on Tuesday, after Wall Street recovered much of the sharp losses incurred following Trump's latest tariff announcement last week. Trump has been critical of the US Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates unchanged amid concerns about the impact of Trump's tariff agenda on prices for American households.

This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it

The Advertiser

timean hour ago

  • The Advertiser

This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it

The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store