it's called communism and can be applied at whatever rate is decided upon depending on the side of the bed someone got out of that morning.
what you described is what happens in China.
RSPT worked out example and Who is next to cop such tax?
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
it's called communism and can be applied at whatever rate is decided upon depending on the side of the bed someone got out of that morning.
what you described is what happens in China.
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?
10 year bond rate is very conservative - the same sort of figures were bandied about for the identification of a "boom" IIRC....
im sure someone has picked it up.............
A gov bond has limited risk of capital loss, hence it has a comensurate rate of return. I think we would be economically stuffed real quick if BHPP investors put their money into Gov bonds instead, remembering that Govs generally dont produce, but absorb .............
If the resource in the ground is really the resource of the people, let the people explore for it, take the risk, and extract and market it, then such taxation regimes would be a moot point.
Instead, we ask someone else to take the risk, provide no real benefit if the deal doesnt come off, but change the rules of the lease once the risk taker makes a profit.
In a normal commercial environment if you have an agreement that states certain conditions on a number of outcomes, and you as the agreement holder change the rules midway through because it suits you..............you would not have enough legal beagles in Gov Phillip Tower to save you, youd be commercially "stuffed".
Now, who stole my bananas ?
ta
rolf
A gov bond has limited risk of capital loss, hence it has a comensurate rate of return. I think we would be economically stuffed real quick if BHPP investors put their money into Gov bonds instead, remembering that Govs generally dont produce, but absorb .............
If the resource in the ground is really the resource of the people, let the people explore for it, take the risk, and extract and market it, then such taxation regimes would be a moot point.
Instead, we ask someone else to take the risk, provide no real benefit if the deal doesnt come off, but change the rules of the lease once the risk taker makes a profit.
In a normal commercial environment if you have an agreement that states certain conditions on a number of outcomes, and you as the agreement holder change the rules midway through because it suits you..............you would not have enough legal beagles in Gov Phillip Tower to save you, youd be commercially "stuffed".
Now, who stole my bananas ?
ta
rolf
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?
mate you are wasting your time trying to debate these things. You are in business, so you recognise the importance of return on capital.
Let things flow where they will, the best situation is for capital projects to be delayed 'indefinately'. this will then hit the 'average' person in the local area.
They will then act in their own best interests and vote accordingly.
i cant be bothered trying to justify this sought of stuff to people who do not see the bigger picture.
I remember i similar situation that related to myself 13 years ago.
Nothing to do with resources, but at that time (mid 1990's) i couldnt justify the excessive personal income tax scales. I went into business myself where i could control 'the final outcome'. My parents were worried at the time, but i said there is no way i am paying 50% tax on a salarly earners income that was not significantly above the average.
As an individual you cant influence the economic direction of a country, but you can influence your own personal affairs. Since i adopted this attitutude i have NEVER LOOKED BACK.
the bigger picture is that no one seems to fully know what the tax will look like, and everyone keeps peddling their side of the story.
there a lot of things miners don't mention that they are getting along with the new tax, which doesn't fit into their picture of the world collapsing if the tax is introduced
steveadl, unfortunately TD Consulting doesn't just dig stuff from the ground, so the profit margins are dictated by retail prices. When the demand for chlorinators goes up, I don't have the luxury of being able to double the asking price.
there a lot of things miners don't mention that they are getting along with the new tax, which doesn't fit into their picture of the world collapsing if the tax is introduced
steveadl, unfortunately TD Consulting doesn't just dig stuff from the ground, so the profit margins are dictated by retail prices. When the demand for chlorinators goes up, I don't have the luxury of being able to double the asking price.
Oh, come on Steve. Labor is using the money wisely. What about what they have done to our schools? We've got 2 new classrooms at our primary school for 850k. And Toomalah got a new 8m by 3m canteen for 650k. And who really cares if it's got no windows?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ce-for-community/story-e6frg6nf-1225869812240
For a bunch of greenies, unionists and public servants who have never run a business or even produced a single thing of worth these blokes are doing as best they can. How bout we just give em a break eh?
See ya's.
the bigger picture is that no one seems to fully know what the tax will look like, and everyone keeps peddling their side of the story.
there a lot of things miners don't mention that they are getting along with the new tax, which doesn't fit into their picture of the world collapsing if the tax is introduced
steveadl, unfortunately TD Consulting doesn't just dig stuff from the ground, so the profit margins are dictated by retail prices. When the demand for chlorinators goes up, I don't have the luxury of being able to double the asking price.
Why aren't the mining stocks booming if the new tax is well balanced as you mention about good stuff for miners? Why are new mining projects being put on hold and executives making special trips to Canberra? I am sure they have better things to do.
So now on one side you have the Government who had a budget deficit of $40B this year inspite of $70B surplus, Treasury whose forcasts has been completely off and on the other side Mining companies who have taking all the risk to produce real profits actually super profits, millions of shareholder who watch company performance like a hawk. Who do you think is in better position to determine whether the new tax is balanced or not?
Why doesn't Canada, Brazil and other countries with minerals don't have such a tax? Don't they care about their countries resources being sold off by foreign companies?
Look, I have no issues with a new tax to compensate the people of Australia for selling non-renewable resources which once gone is gone forever. I think it is justifiable especially since the mining companies are making good profits while the price of resources are quite high. The problem I have is the amount of tax they want to charge. I think it's excessive. Total tax after RSPT will be around 57%, I think it should be brought down to more like 45-48%. Secondly, the money from the RSPT should be used for infrastructure projects which will benefit the people for generations. It should not be used to pay government deficits and inefficiencies.
Cheers,
Oracle.
You raise a good point.
Geez TC, what else can you say but 'wow!'
because stock prices are driven by people who read news papers and believe miners' cries. also why would the stocks boom from introduction of new tax? it eats into profits either way, question is how much.
cause it's their job to ensure maximum profitability of their company. if it requires a trip to Canberra, then trip to Canberra it is.
