The size of the business is exactly equal to the gross revenue it generates by definition. Also, I don't see why capital intensive industries should receive special favour over labour intensive industries.
I believe I made the point that it's less true now than it was when it was first introduced ;-).
At a flat-rate of 5.25% it discourages exactly that much employment.
It hits smaller businesses much harder than it does larger ones. Would a bank or Telstra hire any extra staff if Payroll Tax were abolished? Nope. Not a one. They're already rolling in dough and they've got as many staff as they need to produce and flog their product.
In the end, Payroll Tax takes a decent idea (trying for a method of progressive taxation for businesses) but botches it. Just using gross revenue as the basis for a progressive tax system for corporates might be one option that would be interesting to look at. Of course, in today's environment, it ain't gonna be approved unless it makes bigwigs like Kerry Packer a KFC bucket of money.
no subject
I believe I made the point that it's less true now than it was when it was first introduced ;-).
At a flat-rate of 5.25% it discourages exactly that much employment.
It hits smaller businesses much harder than it does larger ones. Would a bank or Telstra hire any extra staff if Payroll Tax were abolished? Nope. Not a one. They're already rolling in dough and they've got as many staff as they need to produce and flog their product.
In the end, Payroll Tax takes a decent idea (trying for a method of progressive taxation for businesses) but botches it. Just using gross revenue as the basis for a progressive tax system for corporates might be one option that would be interesting to look at. Of course, in today's environment, it ain't gonna be approved unless it makes bigwigs like Kerry Packer a KFC bucket of money.