Forum Archive Index - July 2001

["Paul and Noriko" <pan@muh.biglobe.ne.jp>]

Thanks for your post MrGoodhall,

 

First of all you lose all credibility with me if you cannot spell our names right.

 

In reference to your comments;

 

I  am interested  to  read  your  post   you  say   simply  broadly  comparing  points  will not  provide  the  answer   ,  do  you  have  one  ??, 

dont  forget  this  is  a  discussion  group   ,  the  polices  of  the  aforementioned  countries  put  forward were  not  my   own  ,  so  we  are  far  away  from  any  major  popoulation,

were  never  going  to  get any  closer ,!!!  should  we  just  say  its  all  to  hard.

In  the  herald  today  an  article in b3  it  stated   a  decade  ago   Ireland,  Singapore ,  Israel  were  poorer  than  us ( real  incomes)  they  didnt  move  their  land  mass  they changed  among  other  things,   their  company  tax  rates  etc   companies  will  travel  any  where  if  you  make  attractive  enough.  

I  acknowledge  agriculture  is  still a  major  export  earner  i think  in  the  vacinity  of  40%  and  there  is  no  easy , or  cheap  way  to get our  products  to the  rest  of  the  world.  but   by lowering  our  company tax  rate  we  would   attract   companies  from  across the  spectrum,  how  much  and  how  long  does  it  take  to  export  a   Microsoft  windows  package  !!   

 

My point was simply that despite a genuine issue that needs to be addressed, you presented a sloppy argument that included examples - that as I showed in the last post (and that could be further expounded upon) - merely undermined your case. If you're not willing to realise that, well, I cannot do much about it.

 

Ireland: has been the recipient of EC subsidies for more than a decade and initially provided a low cost location within the EC.

Singapore: located in a strategic location, had a malleable population led by a benevolent dictator, and again provided a low cost workforce.

Israel: subsidised by a large foreign workforce, a historical land connection and a special relationship with the USA.

 

NZ: located miles from anywhere effectively sucking the workforce dry as they head to bigger opportunities.

 

If you reduce the taxes, why should Industry locate there, miles from anywhere anyway? There are more issues than just tax. O.K., so I'm being negative - anyone can do that. Here's a Wall Street article to feed on in the meantime anyway.

 

http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB993056043858876614.html