Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Should Australia pay for lower company tax by abolishing dividend imputation?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014


Is restoring our pre-1985 double income taxation of dividends efficiency-enhancing? If other countries persist with this, should Australia?

What behavioural responses are likely?

Increased foreign investment here might follow. Many support this – yet complain about the high $A. Does Australia face a dearth of capital inflows? Why is the $A strong and rising?

Advertisement

Cutting company tax and abolishing imputation – combined with high and increasing personal tax rates – encourages reduced dividends and higher corporate retentions. Shareholders exploit capital gains tax discounts to realise income from corporate investments. Is this efficient?

One commentator suggests this response is a 'nice thing'. Foreign investors 'compensate' Australian shareholders for their increased tax on dividends by buying their shares at higher prices (presumably due to increased corporate retentions). Show me the arithmetic.

Before 1985 Australia had neither capital gains tax nor dividend imputation. Assuming we must have an income tax (not my preference, incidentally), objective analysts saw this as a major inefficiency in our tax 'system'. The behavioural effects noted above were evident. What's changed?

Incidentally, mixing a non-franked 1.5% PPL levy and a franked 28.5% company tax will be very messy, costly, with unintended effects (eg, 'leakage' of the PPL levy burden to other companies). Better to fully frank the PPL levy (or, much better, avoid the need for it altogether), especially if it's temporary.

It's asserted the banks are pushing for imputation abolition. It's claimed deposits are treated less favourably than dividends. Really? Full imputation of dividends means they are income-taxed just like interest-earning deposits. Company tax on dividends, as a withholding tax, may occur earlier than interest income tax. Income tax still double-taxes income from saving, however invested, but that's another battle.

Are capital gains tax discounts for assets held longer than a year the problem? These discounts don't apply to interest on deposits. So what? Banks are companies too. Their share prices have had a very good run.

Advertisement

Cutting company tax is well worth considering, but within a comprehensive tax reform package, allowing for interactions with other parts of our tax 'system'.

Financing company tax cuts by abolishing imputation, with no other reforms, is neither efficient nor equitable. It restores the pre-1985 'double income taxation' of dividends, and the problems evident at that time.

Taxation of Australian resident dividend income from overseas, and foreign resident dividends generated here, are indeed problems. Mutual recognition negotiations between sovereign tax jurisdictions are needed, not forcing Australian residents back to the inferior pre-1985 double tax model.

Mutual recognition is an inherent difficulty for sovereign national income tax systems grappling with international dividend flows. If countries relied much more on consumption or expenditure-based taxes, this problem would be greatly reduced. Tax would be levied in the country where consumption occurred. International tax shifting concerns would diminish as well.

Australian imputation is not the problem. Its absence elsewhere, and difficulties securing international agreements recognizing income tax paid in other jurisdictions, are the problems.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy