When it comes to the powerful ideas in our heads and the core values in our hearts, we censor ourselves. They are not that different from the rest of us, but in spite of inner doubts and a world geared toward uniformity, they press on and change the world. For most of us we are not like the conceptual innovators that formulate a big idea early on in life and act on it. We are probably more like the experimental innovators that move through idea after idea, learning and evolving as they go.
The fault line in this election has already been exposed, by an unlikely person called Duncan Storrar. He lives in public housing, has two young children and works as an itinerant truck driver.
The media has of course since revealed that he is not in fact the Messiahbut his job was already done. Duncan asked the panel why the income tax cuts in the budget will only go to rich people who won't notice them, when a small cut would change the lives of people in his position.
We notice that sort of stuff. O'Dwyer's considered response to the conundrum which Duncan was expressing neatly illustrates what this election, in economic terms, is really all about. We want to grow the economy, we want to create more jobs.
We want to give people an incentive to work, to invest in their businesses and to employ people and create better lives for themselves. That is what our plan is all about Now, you might say, "Well, that's terrible," but it's not, because what it does is it creates more jobs.
It will mean that those businesses can reinvest and employ more people. Later in the debate, she added: I have sat down with small business, because I'm the Small Business Minister and I've talked to them.
He's going to derive more revenue and he's told me that he is going to put more people on. This is the result of the changes we are making.
It will affect people's lives in a very positive way.
O'Dwyer was stating in simple language the theory of supply-side, or "trickle-down", economics. It is the central economic foundation of the great neo-liberal experiment which has dominated Western economies since Ronald Reagan took office in The idea is easy to grasp: If the government provides incentives to businesses and their owners to work harder and invest more, by reducing the tax they pay on their earnings, then they will naturally and inevitably use the extra money to produce a higher level of economic growth, which will create more and higher-paying jobs, in a virtuous circle which ends up benefiting absolutely everyone - even the poor.
O'Dwyer's cafe owner exemplifies this cycle: The government is giving him a tax cut; he will use the extra money to buy expensive equipment which will make his business more efficient and productive, enabling him to serve more customers, for which he will need to hire more staff.
What's not to love in that equation of economic turbo-charging? Well, let's test the theory with an another small business owner - me. Will we use it to create jobs? No, we won't, and it isn't because we're greedy lawyers.
It's because we're being sold a cheap con. For starters, O'Dwyer was talking rubbish to Duncan. Secondly, the accelerated depreciation is a timing benefit only; you may pay less tax in the first year, but over time your tax bill will be no different.
The potential benefit isn't less tax; it's the extra revenue and profit you hope will flow from buying more equipment, which you hope to afford by getting the upfront deduction.
It's not a bad thing for small businesses, but the Howard government's Review of Business Taxation failed to find a compelling case that accelerated depreciation actually benefits the economy through higher business investment.
As for the actual tax cut - OK, our business will pay 2. What will the shareholders in that business do with the extra money? We'll save it, so that we can give it to the ATO to cover the corresponding increase in our personal income tax bills.
The ultimate owners of companies are people, and they pay income tax on their dividend earnings. If the company is paying less tax, then the franking credit on the dividends is reduced, so the amount the individual shareholders have to pay to make up the difference goes up by the same amount.
The net effect is zero. The resulting economic growth is also zero. It's true that two types of companies and shareholders will derive a net benefit from a company tax cut. First, companies that reinvest the extra profit rather than distribute it as a dividend will get a benefit.
However, most small businesses distribute all their profits as dividends because their owners rely on that as their personal income. Secondly, there are the shareholders who don't pay income tax in Australia, either because they live overseas or because they use Panama-style tax "minimisation" structures.
As Duncan would say, rich people.An exploration of the nature and history of capitalism. Global capitalism, colonies and Third-World economic realities.
2. Explain how constraints in manufacturing are interrelated with a company's decisions regarding volume and variety. 3. Why would a company's cost of manufacturing and procurement tend to increase as the firm changes from an MTP to an MTO strategy? Why would inventory costs tend to decrease?
/5(K). MIL-HDBKA(SE) - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online for free. The following review examines recent economic and agricultural performances in the four developing country regions and highlights the main policy developments affecting their .
Constraint Is Manufacturing Are Interrelated With A Company S Decisions Regarding Volume And Variety. Chapter 7: Multiple Choice Questions 1. Explain how constraints in manufacturing are interrelated with a company's decisions regrarding volume and variety.
Volume and variety provide the manufacturing competency to any firm. Volume helps a firm to take advantage of economy of scale.