|Sunday, January 25, 2009||(Comment)|
Raising Australia's market share — Take 2!
Or Do you believe me yet? — A submission concerning the 2009/10 Federal Budget, by Gavin R. Putland.
. . .
In January 2008, in the preamble to a submission for the last Federal Budget, I wrote:
. . . Kevin Michael Rudd was elected Prime Minister in economic circumstances similar to those of 1972, but further advanced towards disaster. The Fourth Oil Crisis was already upon us, while the global housing bubble — the biggest asset bubble in history — was already bursting in several key countries; in particular, the U.K. housing market had just slipped into reverse, while the U.S. housing market was in depression territory, threatening the stability of the global financial system through devaluation of collateral. The conservatives had already positioned themselves for a swift comeback by claiming that Rudd's workplace policies would cause the next recession.
Devalued collateral means less credit, hence less effective demand, hence (directly or indirectly) less global demand for the kinds of products that Australia exports. Hence, to avoid job losses in Australian export industries, Australia must capture a greater fraction of the smaller market...
If Rudd does not want to be remembered as another Scullin, another Whitlam, and the first Labor Prime Minister to lose his seat in the House, he must take urgent and drastic action to raise Australia's market share...
[Emphasis added.] The covering letter of that submission was addressed to the Prime Minister himself (who was then my local Federal Member), and said that the suggested reforms would “stop payroll taxes, superannuation contributions and tax-related compliance costs from feeding into prices of exports and from discriminating against local products relative to imports...” I added that if the Prime Minister did not heed such advice,
. . . I will not be at all surprised if a million of your fellow Australians lose their jobs before you lose yours.
On February 12, 2008, I completed a simpler proposal which would stop income tax and its compliance costs from feeding into prices of exports and from discriminating against local products relative to imports. This would be achieved without raising prices overall, without changing after-tax wage relativities, and without touching the GST.
That simpler proposal is reproduced below — verbatim, except that the deeming rate for pensioners' financial assets has been updated.
. . .
. . .
[Reposted August 18, 2012.]
|Tweet||Return to Contents|