Comments on Ken Henry "
Ken Henry: why Australia’snon-mining sector will continue to struggle", 12/07/2012,
https://theconversation.edu.au/ken-henry-why-australias-non-mining-sector-will-continue-to-struggle-8224
This is where many economists and government officials have been lacking in creativity and in bringing a whole practical package together to deal with challenges, although the current challenges from mining boom is a good one.
Dr Henry should realise that the Henry Taxation Review's recommendation on the mining tax is a good economic theory but is not very applicable in practice and it was this combination together with bungles by politicians and bureaucrats that have resulted the current poor state of the MRRT.
Undoubtedly, the initial design of a mining tax by the Henry Review was very ambitious and elegant in theory. But the problem was it is too theoretical but not practical. An alternative one could be as simple as a pure addition to the company tax with an link to either terms of trade using mineral exports and all imports or the relative prices of mineral exports.
Of course, that additional tax should be mostly given to the states where the additional profits are generated, with some left the to the commonwealth for national adjustment to the mining boom.
States, of course, would be part of the adjustment process using that additional profit tax revenue from mining companies.
This can limit the rise of the Australian dollar and a lower dollar is conducive to lessen the impact of the mining boom, that is, the Dutch Disease.
The so called Dutch Disease can be managed with a good national policy.
Only purely relying on the market that gives to the rise of Dutch Disease.
The main viewpoint and argument in this article belongs to the latter.
Dr Henry should realise that the Henry Taxation Review's recommendation on the mining tax is a good economic theory but is not very applicable in practice and it was this combination together with bungles by politicians and bureaucrats that have resulted the current poor state of the MRRT.
Undoubtedly, the initial design of a mining tax by the Henry Review was very ambitious and elegant in theory. But the problem was it is too theoretical but not practical. An alternative one could be as simple as a pure addition to the company tax with an link to either terms of trade using mineral exports and all imports or the relative prices of mineral exports.
Of course, that additional tax should be mostly given to the states where the additional profits are generated, with some left the to the commonwealth for national adjustment to the mining boom.
States, of course, would be part of the adjustment process using that additional profit tax revenue from mining companies.
This can limit the rise of the Australian dollar and a lower dollar is conducive to lessen the impact of the mining boom, that is, the Dutch Disease.
The so called Dutch Disease can be managed with a good national policy.
Only purely relying on the market that gives to the rise of Dutch Disease.
The main viewpoint and argument in this article belongs to the latter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment