25%的不令人信服的理由

G. Cooper
{"title":"25%的不令人信服的理由","authors":"G. Cooper","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3059257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines several elements of the case currently being advanced for reducing Australia’s corporate tax rate to 25%. In essence, the proposal is for an immediate, certain and widely dispersed revenue loss wagered in the hope of triggering a contingent and deferred response from a narrow target. The article revisits the history of this proposal and the development of the argument in the last two decades. It then queries some impressions embedded in the current debate — that the proposal is for a tax cut, that a 30% rate on commercial profit is actually paid (or meant to be paid) by most companies, that the imputation system will negate much of the cost of the lost revenue and that most foreign investors will benefit from a reduced corporate rate. The article concludes that, while the proposal may be sensible for other reasons, the case currently being made is unconvincing.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unconvincing Case for 25%\",\"authors\":\"G. Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3059257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines several elements of the case currently being advanced for reducing Australia’s corporate tax rate to 25%. In essence, the proposal is for an immediate, certain and widely dispersed revenue loss wagered in the hope of triggering a contingent and deferred response from a narrow target. The article revisits the history of this proposal and the development of the argument in the last two decades. It then queries some impressions embedded in the current debate — that the proposal is for a tax cut, that a 30% rate on commercial profit is actually paid (or meant to be paid) by most companies, that the imputation system will negate much of the cost of the lost revenue and that most foreign investors will benefit from a reduced corporate rate. The article concludes that, while the proposal may be sensible for other reasons, the case currently being made is unconvincing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3059257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3059257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了目前正在推进的将澳大利亚企业税率降至25%的案例的几个要素。从本质上讲,该提议是押注于立即、确定且广泛分散的收入损失,以期触发一个狭窄目标的偶发和延迟反应。这篇文章回顾了这一提议的历史,以及过去二十年来这一论点的发展。然后,它质疑了当前辩论中根深蒂固的一些印象——该提案是为了减税,商业利润的30%税率实际上是由大多数公司支付的(或打算支付的),税收抵扣系统将抵消收入损失的大部分成本,大多数外国投资者将从降低的企业税率中受益。这篇文章的结论是,尽管从其他原因来看,该提议可能是明智的,但目前提出的理由并不令人信服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Unconvincing Case for 25%
This article examines several elements of the case currently being advanced for reducing Australia’s corporate tax rate to 25%. In essence, the proposal is for an immediate, certain and widely dispersed revenue loss wagered in the hope of triggering a contingent and deferred response from a narrow target. The article revisits the history of this proposal and the development of the argument in the last two decades. It then queries some impressions embedded in the current debate — that the proposal is for a tax cut, that a 30% rate on commercial profit is actually paid (or meant to be paid) by most companies, that the imputation system will negate much of the cost of the lost revenue and that most foreign investors will benefit from a reduced corporate rate. The article concludes that, while the proposal may be sensible for other reasons, the case currently being made is unconvincing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信