Jump to content

The Henry Tax Report


flower

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 471
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

 

Totally agree however the government who could present the data will not do so as it may not suit there case. If the resources companies want to be believed they can present the data but would that suit there agenda. Both sides are playing the public for mugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

g'day sook, they will probably accept the $0.26 per barral tax as fair and reasonable - an increase in their insurance premium to take care of oil spills in the future.

 

The new Oz 40% RSPT would equate to more than $26 per barrel (or about 100 times the proposed increase).

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Mosaic,

 

You have just set a new world record in the blue ribbon Disinformation Olympic event - your calculation implies that the RSPT is to be levied at 40% on all income rather than on profits above 6%. Was this a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters or just a lack of understanding of the nature of the tax?

 

Yet again I call some fair and honest analysis of the effects of this tax on the whole Australian economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

g'day sharkie,

 

Whilst I admit that I only did a really quick calculation, it was not based on revenue, it was based on profits. More importantly the point I was making was that the levy referred to was minor, and was not a sovereign risk issue.

 

$26 at 40% implies an oil price of $65 - so it should be clear that I wasn't using revenue. My rough calculation was based on an oil price of $80 with a capex of $7 and opex of $8 which are the right order of magnitude. The 6% uplift factor going forward on capex would be = 6% of $7 = $0.42 per annum. So the $26 (guesstimate) figure will likely go higher over time (as expected).

 

Oil futures indiate that oil prices are likely to increase much faster than $0.42 per annum. Equally importantly, they indicate that my $80 figure is reasonable, if not conservative.

 

I think that you owe me an apology.

 

Cheers,

Mosaic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sharkie---I defy anybody to understand anything about the tax grab. The Government collectively has dug themselves a huge hole in an attempt to hide it's past failures, and once you start recinding your own pre election promises to throw taxpayers spin money at a problem you created the end must be nigh for the perpertrators.

 

It's gone past the stage of being a joke, this lunacy is ruining our reputation overseas.

 

Unfortunately it is also having a very serious, hopefully short term, effect on individual and corporate investors----WORLDWIDE.

 

Remember the last great man? Remember the Banana Republic? The Bananas are ripening rapidly and about to fall off the poxy tree!

 

The tax angle doesnt matter any longer it now all boils down to CONFIDENCE---or the lack of it.----IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sharkie---I defy anybody to understand anything about the tax grab.

 

Can we please attempt to lift the level of this discussion. :grrr:

 

Sorry flower but yours is such an inane comment and is unfortunately about par for the course for much of the stuff on this thread. If I want to read such low-fibre exchanges I can easily go to hc.

 

Mate how about some actual analysis rather than drivel like this

 

It's gone past the stage of being a joke, this lunacy is ruining our reputation overseas.

 

Unfortunately it is also having a very serious, hopefully short term, effect on individual and corporate investors----WORLDWIDE.

 

Remember the last great man? Remember the Banana Republic? The Bananas are ripening rapidly and about to fall off the poxy tree!

 

I spend my days scanning international financial commentry and quite honestly the vast majority of foreign investors appear not to give a flying **** about some tax debate in Australia. And for you to suggest that recent international stock and currency volatility was primarily or even substantially caused by what may or may not happen to the local tax structure in a couple of years is unmitigated nonsense.

 

And as for your dog whistle shot about the banana republic. If you must resort to tribal barbs, why not at least put it in context? The comment was made by Paul Keating for the very reason that at that time there was flagging support for the microeconomic reforms that he was pushing. Keating as treasurer did to the economy what Howard as treasurer wanted to do but did not. And the recession we had to have really was the recession we had to have. If you read bloggers like Mike Shedlock and Peter Schiff and Marc Faber they are saying exactly what Keating was arrogant enough to say in public : sometimes it is better to allow the economy to cleanse itself through a recession than to keep bailing marginal failing operators out. My personal view is that in the end Keating had past his used-by date and still is too full of himself, but like Peter Costello, he actually moved the Australian economy towards the good place we are now in.

 

So how about stop using the debate of the day for cover for taking some cheap, immature party political shots. I find myself often disagreeing with mosaic's views but almost as often I have trouble countering his usual indepth and considered analysis in support of his views. Which is why I keep coming back to ss. The work that mosaic and others of his ilk do is what separates ss from hc imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more facts to add to this debate as opposed to some of the wild claims being put forward by those with a political agenda. The Sydney Morning Herald reported today that "PricewaterhouseCoopers' annual study of the taxes paid by the world's 57 leading mining firms, 'Effective Rate Comparison of the Global Mining Industry', calculates the effective tax rate on miners for six countries. The industry pays 29% tax in Britain, 22% in the US, 21% in China, 20.4% in South Africa, 17.9% in Canada and 16.4% in Australia. Worldwide the average effective rate of tax across the mining industry is 23%, So much for being overtaxed."

 

I suppose those that denounce the introduction of any facts that are not in agreement with their party political view of the world will continue to play the man and now group PricewaterhouseCoopers' and KPMG who carried out the treasury modelling on the effects of the RSPT as yet more left wing apparatchiks.

 

Apologies for this rant, but it seems that only one side of this debate is allowed to make exaggerated claims.

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...