Jump to content

The Henry Tax Report


flower

Recommended Posts

National Emergency my arse.

 

He created it and now its his arse on the line so no matter their policy on advertising he is going to defend it with taxpayers money, hope the press and the opposition give him a very hard time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 471
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Check out the comments in the Australian article - i'd hazard a guess at 95% (of comments) showing strong disapproval against the actions of Wayne Swan.

 

Do The Australian readers reflect the average person on the street or just shareholders with vested interests?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the thoughts on this??

 

AAP

 

New data suggests the mining industry paid just 16 per cent of their 2008/09 profits in corporate tax, an independent think tank says.

 

A senior research fellow at the Australia Institute David Richardson says Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on Friday shows that in 2008/09 the total operating profit before tax for mining was $63.636 billion.

 

He said the Minerals Council of Australia estimated it paid $10.092 billion in company tax in that year in its pre-budget submission.

 

"That means the mining industry paid 16 per cent of their profit in company tax for 2008-09," Mr Richardson told AAP.

 

"These figures clearly show that the mining industry has been exaggerating the amount of tax they pay. The true figures reinforce the need for a tax on mining companies super profit."

 

The institute's executive director Richard Denniss was one of the 20 economists who signed an open letter to Treasurer Wayne Swan this week, backing the government's planned 40 per cent Resources Super Profits Tax (RSPT).

 

The RSPT has drawn out a heated debate between the Rudd government and the mining industry, backed by the federal opposition.

 

The government's Resource Tax Consultative Panel is due to hand over its initial findings to Mr Swan on Friday.

 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf...ent&src=hp7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, firstly you need to find out who is the Australia Institute.

In a nutshell, they are the think tank of the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute

I'm not sure I'd use the term indepenant.

 

For example, Sharon Burrows is on the board.

https://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/3

 

Either Mr Richardson's analytical skill are very, very poor or he is abusing statistics in order to push his agenda = deliberately being deceptive.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That means the mining industry paid 16 per cent of their profit in company tax for 2008-09," Mr Richardson told AAP.

 

If this is true then no wonder mining sector is screaming, they can well afford to pay more and the government has plenty of room to negotiate on the proposed tax if they choose to do so. At present I can only assume both parties are trying to pull the wool over the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16% may be correct as an industry wide average for 2009, but to quote that alone out of context is misleading in the extreme..

 

It includes companies with loss making & recent mine start-ups which would not have reached profitability. (Total earnings have not exceeded the cost to bring development into production)

 

I assume it also includes International companies who do not pay income tax in Australia, only royalites etc.

 

Lets not forget the amount of writedowns & depreciation due to the slump in commodity prices over that Financial Year.

 

Until we see some of the majors singled out & show clearly the amount of tax they paid as a single entity & over a number of years, you can assume the stats are getting weighted to favor whoevers agenda is being pushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

g'day blueice,

So is that "think tank" suggesting that the aussie miners told white lies about their taxes then?????

The AI is comparing oranges and apples to get a lemon. His analysis is nonsense. He is either incompetent, or he is happy to knowingly promote a lemon.

 

The mining companies for the most part are telling the truth.

 

Without knowing the exact nature/meaning of his data, it is hard to pass judgement.

 

However, probably errors in his analysis is that

 

a) not all resource companies are members of the Mineral Council.

i) In other words, tax paid may only be for Mineral Council compaies. Mineral Coucil equals Oranges.

ii) Profits are for all mining companies, some of which are members of the Mineral Council (Oranges), and some are not (Apples).

 

The AI are suggesting that Tax / Profits is around 16%.

 

Is AI's calculation = Oranges' Tax / (Oranges' Profit plus Apples' Profit) to get the 16% result? Equals a lemon!

 

It should be (Oranges' Tax plus Apples' Tax) / (Oranges' Profit plus Apples' profit).

or Oranges' Tax / Oranges' Profit.

 

both of these will be greater than 16%.

 

b) many resource companies have carry forward losses (incurred during exploration and project development) when they start making profits. Until profits have offset losses, they don't pay tax - hopefully even the AI would agree that this is fair enough. In a nutshell this situation increases profits, but doesn't not increase tax paid, and hence makes it appear that the average tax paid is lower than it really is = a lemon.

 

Looking at BHP as an example (which I posted earlier),

 

According to page 177 of BHP's 2009 Annual Report....

http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bbContentReposi...lReport2009.pdf

 

Profit before taxation was $11.617b

Tax (income and state governement royalities [tax]) was $5.279b

Federal and State Government take = 45.44%.

 

This is before the 40% super profits tax has been applied.

 

Presumable BHP were truthful in their annual report.

 

The ATO would audit BHP if their tax rate was only 16%.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M; Let's cut to the chase.

 

This whole new tax thing started out as pure political excercise--anybody with any brains would have released it on Christmas Eve--when it was delivered, enough spin was put into the release date for months prior, press/population would have been 3 sheets to the wind and it would have been forgotten by Boxing Day. (Wasn't it very odd that it was planned six months prior to be delivered on Christmas Eve--that smelt of one big rat)

 

BUT: K.Rudd knew by then he had a series of disasters on his hands--no need to enumerate them. So being the arch spin doctor (mind you he will get hoisted upon his own petard long before Tony Blair did) he planned to release it just when he did as a pure election winning ploy.

 

Now the academics come out to play instead of just modelling, whatever that means--I always thought they were politically independant, theres another theory shot to pieces.

 

As with all his other masterpieces he got it wrong again, and if the opposition and everybody who is anyway reliant on mining (which is nearly everybody) can't jetison this lot-----------

 

Apologies for being purely political, but in effect election politics is what it was all about to start with----IMO.

 

BTW: It's great entertainment--streets ahead of Yes Minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...