House debates

Thursday, 11 May 2017

Questions without Notice


2:31 pm

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

All of the costs of the reductions in company tax are fully funded and set out in the budget. They are fully funded. The budget goes into surplus in 2020-21 and remains there over the medium term. That is all set out in the budget papers, and honourable members know it. That is unlike the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which the honourable members opposite did not fund. We are funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are funding our educational commitments. We are funding the guarantee of Medicare. We are funding a reduction in company tax. And we are doing that because we know Australian companies have to be competitive. The fact of the matter is, if honourable members seriously think Australian business can compete with a tax rate of 30 per cent, when other comparable countries are at 20 per cent or 18 per cent—the United States is heading to 15 per cent—they are dreaming. Australian businesses need to be competitive. They need the incentives to invest. They need the incentives to employ. The cost of the company tax cuts are fully calculated, fully taken into account. Those cuts are vital to retaining the competitiveness of Australian business, of Australian workers, to ensure that they get the investment and the jobs they need.


Tibor Majlath
Posted on 12 May 2017 5:07 pm

The race to the bottom with tax cuts simply ignores the fact that nation states are not all the same.

Government subsidies and protectionism all distort the competiveness of trade.

Tax cuts most likely favour international companies a lot more which operate globally in tax havens than a small business operating locally.

Infrastructure, health, education and welfare spending dependent on tax revenue differ widely. National political institutions are not all the same.

The government's argument is naive.