thats one thing that I will agree on.
Any economy that is one sided in anything is exposed to changes in world trends.
ta
rolf'
RSPT worked out example and Who is next to cop such tax?
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
thats one thing that I will agree on.
Any economy that is one sided in anything is exposed to changes in world trends.
ta
rolf'
sorry but this is not the case , huge risks in mining , say commodity x is selling for 10 and it cost your company 7 to recover .what if thew price starts selling for 6 are you going to continue mining x . also this doesn't take into account increasing mining costs eg.wages , fuel . just fuel bill alone can destroy a mine due to price rises .
so they close the mine .. when the price of x goes to say 12 and they might think of re-opening the mine but at a great expense so there is a few of the risks involved is many others .native title ,change of use , enviromental lobbyists etc. . what risk is there in being a bank ??????????or a large auto manufacturer it appears.
Originally Posted by Strannik View Post
the whole reliance of our economy on resource trade is a dangerous thing in itself.
same could be said for houses a heavily subsidised large part of the ecconomy
It is. But what to do about it?
It's what has happened with globalisation everywhere. Every country giving up on what it's not good at and concentrating on what it is good at. It's a concern with every country.
We are the worlds quarry. We couldn't possibly build a jet airliner or even a tractor or truck anymore. We used to be able to.
Japan is totally reliant on manufacturing high quality consumer goods. But they can't even grow enough food to feed themselves and have no energy or commodities.
New Zealand is totally dependant on meat and dairy production. They can't build a TV or computer.
The middle East is totally dependant on oil exports, but they would starve to death in a month without food imports, and so on and so on.
I reckon it would be better to be us, and have plenty of food and energy and resources, and have to import most other stuff, than to be Japan and have plenty of consumer goods, but reliant on importing food and energy. You can't eat TV's or toyotas.
One benefit is as we are all so reliant on other nations, maybe it will reduce the chances of another world war? Dunno?
See ya's.
i'm sure it's a high risk, but somehow mining companies make billions in after tax profits year after year despite the crisis etc.
also i'm sure that taxation regime change is one of those risks which was incorporated in previous profits
so do banks .oil companies. owners of large super markets. . oh the same lot own most liquor and petrol outlets now too . shall we tax them the same or any company that makes over the amount they are talking .oh might as well inc property developers
. see the list is endless many many more mining companies have gone broke trying to make it that have .
You forgot Telstra. I forget the actual figures but over 60c in every dollar billed goes straight to their bottom line. But "Mums 'n Dads" own that.
You forgot Telstra. I forget the actual figures but over 60c in every dollar billed goes straight to their bottom line. But "Mums 'n Dads" own that.
That's ok, Telstra is getting screwed by the Govt. in a different way. Don't need to tax them to buggery, just pass legislation to forcibly rip the heart out of their business.
(ok I know it's more complicated than that, but couldn't resist
)(ok I know it's more complicated than that, but couldn't resist
It is, but I take your point.
funny, huh?
Who said, Swanie?
funny, huh?
This appears to ignore royalties - have a read of http://www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/FAQs.aspx to see what the Effective tax rate under royalties plux 30% company tax currently is.
I listened to Swanie on the radio this morning and after being pressed to answer if that figure included royalties he finally said "Even if it did......."
So from Swan's mouth It doesn't include royalties. It defies logic to suggest that an industry as open to public scrutiny as mining could possibly avoid that much tax. If it can, the tax act should be tightened to reign in ALL tax cheats, because if the miners can do it, so can everyone else.
If you want to tax "super profits" the banks would be an even more popular target. They make billions every quarter, surely they can chip in a little?
So you reckon they are not mining our resources? Really? They are mining our pockets!!!!!
So from Swan's mouth It doesn't include royalties. It defies logic to suggest that an industry as open to public scrutiny as mining could possibly avoid that much tax. If it can, the tax act should be tightened to reign in ALL tax cheats, because if the miners can do it, so can everyone else.
If you want to tax "super profits" the banks would be an even more popular target. They make billions every quarter, surely they can chip in a little?
So you reckon they are not mining our resources? Really? They are mining our pockets!!!!!
funny, huh?
This is all a bit weird. Everyone pays tax. As the late Kerry Packer once said, he payed as little as possible. Any one should pay as little as possible if they are smart, and I notice on this forum you have people on 100k plus wages per year paying bugger all tax due to property losses and depreciation and stuff. Nothing wrong with that, it's the law, and if you stay within the law, your just paying as little as possible, just like big Kerry.
I pay as little as possible. I bought a new $480k header this year as part of the 50% investment allowance, and this took $240k off my taxable income. I get depreciation off my machinery and all the rest that every other business does. I claim all the costs and stuff as anyone would.
So my question is, if BHP or RIO are not paying 30% tax but less, and if they are not breaking the law or commiting fraud, but just paying what they have to, then surely the tax they are paying is the full amount? Perhaps BHP and RIO bought a billion dollars worth of new caterpillar stuff using the investment allowance and reduced their tax?
Or if fraud can be proved, then take them to the cleaners and make them pay whats due?
Or if they are not really paying enough tax, then fix the system?
But how can any government whinge that someone is not paying enough if they are paying all that is required from their own laws that they make? I don't get it?
What am I missing here?
See ya's.
Last edited:
funny, huh?
Strannik, the point is the governments attitude to raise taxes where someone is making a lot of money. Trust me, with such attitude it is NOT going to end with miners.
Tomorrow, it could be the banks, high net worth individuals etc etc.
Cheers,
Oracle.
^ ^ What Oracle said!
You've got to be kidding right? You're falling for the Swan/Rudd crap. You can make a chart look like whatever you want if you exclude important parts.
So what are state royalties then, just a happy feel good item the miners pay but get reimbursed in candy canes and lollies??!!
But it's this sort of slanted, opportunistic story telling from Swan that will still probably see them inch over the line at the next election because people take it as fact. *sigh*
who said otherwise? representatives of mining companies?
You've got to be kidding right? You're falling for the Swan/Rudd crap. You can make a chart look like whatever you want if you exclude important parts.
So what are state royalties then, just a happy feel good item the miners pay but get reimbursed in candy canes and lollies??!!
But it's this sort of slanted, opportunistic story telling from Swan that will still probably see them inch over the line at the next election because people take it as fact. *sigh*
hehe but SF, if we're to believe the above graph is a true representation (which I don't for a second), then apparently financials (ie. banks) pay the equal highest rate of tax (along with retail
). Its not just the tax itself that is the problem, its how it was delivered, the fact that its retrospective, the fact that the mining industry wasnt consulted beforehand.
The government spent how many billions during the GFC to sure up confidence.
In times of uncertainty confidence has a huge impact on what WILL BE.
So we were actually going through the post GFC in reasonable condition with the biggest risk being China.
Now all the focus is squarely on Australia.
Look at the currency movement, we have droped more than even the euro, and we would have been droping more if it wasnt for the RBA intervening and buying AU$.
First the government started with telstra;
Then the government moved on resources.
I heard on the grapevine at a private meeting between miners and the PM, the PM made the offhanded comment re banks: 'dont worrry they are next'.
Australia's soverign risk rating are rising just as we need stability and global confidence in our country.
Even China is worried, sure the proposed legislation works in China's favour, especially the 40% reimbursement of losses. However China is not stupid, what happens if China invests hoping to get the 40% reimbursement and then the legislation is changed, bang goes the viability of the project.
Anyway i'm just an individual, what will be will be, so i just look at how i can profit from all of this.
The government spent how many billions during the GFC to sure up confidence.
In times of uncertainty confidence has a huge impact on what WILL BE.
So we were actually going through the post GFC in reasonable condition with the biggest risk being China.
Now all the focus is squarely on Australia.
Look at the currency movement, we have droped more than even the euro, and we would have been droping more if it wasnt for the RBA intervening and buying AU$.
First the government started with telstra;
Then the government moved on resources.
I heard on the grapevine at a private meeting between miners and the PM, the PM made the offhanded comment re banks: 'dont worrry they are next'.
Australia's soverign risk rating are rising just as we need stability and global confidence in our country.
Even China is worried, sure the proposed legislation works in China's favour, especially the 40% reimbursement of losses. However China is not stupid, what happens if China invests hoping to get the 40% reimbursement and then the legislation is changed, bang goes the viability of the project.
Anyway i'm just an individual, what will be will be, so i just look at how i can profit from all of this.
you are falling for miner's hysteria... bla bla bla ... and so on
what miners fail to mention is that this is tax on super profits. a lot of mining companies aren't super profitable, so they won't even be affected by tax.
now for those who reap huge profits due to resource boom - they need to give back to us as they don't own resources.
take oil for example.
the companies who pump it out are quite profitable while the oil stays at 70 bucks. Now what happened to their profits when oil went to 145? It skyrocketed. Why the companies who don't own the oil should benefit from skyrocketing prices, and Australians who do own it get zero?
Keep in mind that at the end of the day, when the mine runs out it's not the company who's left without ore, it's Australia that is left without any resources.
it has nothing to do with swallowing the miners story. Swan is running around showing those sort of 17% tax figures. It is a blatent misdirection which cannot be denied.
Right, when the resources run out that's it - true.
That argument would hold a lot more water if Rudd was proposing to put the extra tax revenue into a soverign fund or something similar. But that's not the case, he's using it to plug current deficits and ongoing annual govt. expenditure. Following Rudd's theory, when the resources run out, so does the tax revenue and what exactly will be left to show for it for Aust's future?
Oh and by the way, I still don't agree anything above 10yr bond rate is a 'super profit.' TD consulting must have a pretty crappy business profit margin. Or perhaps it makes more and you'd like to volunteer them for a 'super profit' tax as well?
Right, when the resources run out that's it - true.
That argument would hold a lot more water if Rudd was proposing to put the extra tax revenue into a soverign fund or something similar. But that's not the case, he's using it to plug current deficits and ongoing annual govt. expenditure. Following Rudd's theory, when the resources run out, so does the tax revenue and what exactly will be left to show for it for Aust's future?
Oh and by the way, I still don't agree anything above 10yr bond rate is a 'super profit.' TD consulting must have a pretty crappy business profit margin. Or perhaps it makes more and you'd like to volunteer them for a 'super profit' tax as well?
