Home > Regular Features > Sandpit

Sandpit

November 6th, 2017

A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Collin Street
    November 6th, 2017 at 21:03 | #1

    So. Transfer pricing.

    I, SA Rue-du-Collin, am a company registered in the small european landgraviate of Luxenstein. My business is in IP licencing, particularly the incredibly-valuable patents I have on a process we developed that uses specially-developed paper which can be printed on on both sides, or some such. The company Collin Street Pty Ltd has, for the sum of a billion dollars annually, has acquired a non-exclusive right to use this patent in australia.

    I, Rue-du-Collin, am selling something in australia and am therefore engaged in business in australia; the net proceeds of the business — which would be the entirety of the billion dollars — should therefore be subject to australian company tax; it’s unlikely that I can do much with australian franking credits since they don’t work in Leichtenburg, but that’s my problem.

    [short form: a geographic IP licence is a business done in the geography it covers and should be taxed accordingly]

  2. Fred Pottinger
    November 9th, 2017 at 14:27 | #2

    Naive question: Just saw a labor campaign pitch vid, claim made “for every $1 invested in (in this case) Skilling Qld’ers Program, $8 is returned to the Qld economy”… This was putting a small cohort through a cert II TAFE barista course, a sector which doesn’t look to me to be starved for skilled-enough workers ( if there wasn’t already a surplus of workers, and the business profits to pay them, would kids be putting up with sparse and irregular shifts, businesses setting up and going bust every other day?).
    So, good chance that for the considerable dollar invested (think infrastructure and HR of TAFE, the subsidised social enterprise “businesses” set up and staffed for work-place experience component, and the agencies that shepherd the wanna-be froth artists to the program), it’ll be a lot of coffees served by the few “graduates” that actually get a job adding value to the cost of “training” to get to the eight times multiplier…
    ( I heard this morn, even after 5 years, only 30% of graduates aust uni’s got job using their degree skills, another 30% working in something which HECS accumulating trainiing not necessary for, who knows about remaing 40%…. what corresponding aggregate #s are for VOCAT sector, including privatised scams, anyone guess?)
    The question: are these touted magic pudding multipliers robustly evidence based, and if so, how, where, and by whom? A dodgy product of the productivity commission?

  3. D
    November 11th, 2017 at 00:17 | #3

    Fred, It’s called making stuff up and getting away with it.

    After “investing” (which really means “spending”, or more often these days “giving away to corporations”) then eight times that “investment” is “returned” to the economy.

    Obviously, we count the first $1 because we just put that into the economy. We’re square straight up!

    Then we have nebulous things like “growth”, “wellness”, “savings” and so on… until bingo we’ve magicked up the other $7.

    The reverse applies when it suits us.

    For example: “Sick Days Cost The Economy $80 Trillion Dollars!”

  4. hc
    November 12th, 2017 at 20:22 | #4

    I think that you look incredibly lean and fit, John, and also agree (it would be hard to deny) that I don’t. But I wonder if extreme exercise is good for you.

    A report in the hated Oz:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/too-much-exercise-could-be-bad-for-you-research-shows/news-story/7d6c6221c9ab3f98b43b75b926dfca47

  5. hc
    November 12th, 2017 at 20:28 | #5

    The comment was not only motivated by the article. Also by the fact that my current more active life (golf 4 times a week, physical labour in the garden), leaves me often feeling tired rather than fitter. Are we just programmed to wear out?

  6. Ernestine Gross
    November 14th, 2017 at 12:47 | #6

    @hc

    “Are we just programmed to wear out?”

    Yes, but not all of us wear out at the same physical depreciation rate.

  7. Ikonoclast
    November 14th, 2017 at 14:10 | #7

    Not programmed to wear out. Rather, not selected to not wear out. Natural selection has selected for the greatest possible survival fitness which must be a best combined fit (I guess) of individual fitness and species fitness. The best fit, for mammals anyway, seems to be birth, maturation, reproduction, raising the young and then… not much use any more, so not selected to not wear out. That last is modified a bit for a eusocial species and thus survival to help raise 2nd generation and pass on knowledge . So it seems to me but I am not an evolutionary biologist so what would I know?

  8. Tim Macknay
    November 14th, 2017 at 15:28 | #8

    Eldon Tyrell: You were made as well as we could make you”.
    Roy Batty: “But not to last”.

  9. John Quiggin
    November 15th, 2017 at 05:23 | #9

    @hc

    I did read the article, and it has some of the usual problems of longrunning population studies (no real capacity to do controls, weak effects), but seemed to be well done.

    Fortunately, I have had my CAC levels checked and they are fine, so whether or not the study stands up in replication, it doesn’t affect me personally.

Comments are closed.