Inequality is out of control in Australia

Remove this Banner Ad

what is Norway's mining tax compared to Australia's (state plus federal) mining tax?

what is Norway's O&G tax versus Australia's (state plus federal)?
PR, while I appreciate that this is relevant to the post you quoted it's not terribly relevant to the thread.

Let's stay on topic wherever we can instead of bogging things down trying to lead people through a different conversation, please.
 
This is why we need a royal commission into our media and the international interference into our democratic process.
We don't need a Royal Commission.

Everyone knows that corporate interests influence corporate media to paint a picture which suits their agenda.

We should certainly be having a robust conversation about how that affects our democracy. Especially since democracy includes a 4th estate which it assumes is functioning independently. This was always rubbish, as the media has always favoured the aristocracy, then the rich, with just a few exceptions through time.

For me, it's the biggest problem underlying and causing polarisation. Some of the talking points in the media (corporate on the right and social media for both sides) are just outright stupid and make the other side think those in the majority on the other side are all really that mental.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I believe it’s 78% on oil and gas View attachment 1658677

Norway is 78% - being 22% corporate tax (profit based) and 56% additional for Special Tax (profit base)

and Australia is 30% Corporate tax (profit based), 40% petroleum tax (profit based) and WA royalty 12.5% (revenue based)

what % of profit is the total for Australia would be your guess on a "profit base"? The ATO says 63% but it would be good to hear your call
 
PR, while I appreciate that this is relevant to the post you quoted it's not terribly relevant to the thread.

Let's stay on topic wherever we can instead of bogging things down trying to lead people through a different conversation, please.

noted

I would have thought tax and wealth distribution was relevant, especially given the wealth of this nation is its resources
 
Norway is 78% - being 22% corporate tax (profit based) and 56% additional for Special Tax (profit base)

and Australia is 30% Corporate tax (profit based), 40% petroleum tax (profit based) and WA royalty 12.5% (revenue based)

what % of profit is the total for Australia would be your guess on a "profit base"? The ATO says 63% but it would be good to hear your call
 
The graphs are pretty simple - market price goes up Norway gets more but Australia still gets the same

1) Australia taxes at 63% and Norway taxes at 78%
2) are these graphs federal taxes or both state and federal?
3) what is your assessment based on the graphs and why?
4) what would you implement as a solution?
5) the institute calls for "We need a windfall profits tax!", yet shows a graph on revenue and ignores that we have a super profits tax on O&G. Do you feel they are misleading you and others?
 
Last edited:
You do realize the graphs are in local currencies and the industries are pretty much the same size…

I would have thought norway's O&G is a more mature sector than Australia's and circa double ours over the last 20 years. Where ours evidenced by the graph has grown significantly in recent years due to new projects.

This probably explains the profitability as one has new infrastructure and the other benefits from existing infrastructure. Perhaps also the difference is the cost of bringing to market.

is that what you see? what would be your views on the 63% taxing of our O&G. Do you feel that is enough or would you tax it more and if so how (profit tax, royalty or other?)?
 
What do you suggest he do?
It was more an observation than suggestion. Look at how the French treat pension changes as opposed to Australians.

What would I do? Whinge on the internet.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would have thought norway's O&G is a more mature sector than Australia's and circa double ours over the last 20 years. Where ours evidenced by the graph has grown significantly in recent years due to new projects.

This probably explains the profitability as one has new infrastructure and the other benefits from existing infrastructure. Perhaps also the difference is the cost of bringing to market.

is that what you see? what would be your views on the 63% taxing of our O&G. Do you feel that is enough or would you tax it more and if so how (profit tax, royalty or other?)?

Here are some suggestions … Ken Henry suggest 100% over a certain figure.



The problem is stopping government from spending the extra revenue.

This is why a sovereign is needed. To stop Dutch disease etc… have you watched the video I posted on the Norwegian fund?
 
1) Australia taxes at 63% and Norway taxes at 78%
2) are these graphs federal taxes or both state and federal?
3) what is your assessment based on the graphs and why?
4) what would you implement as a solution?
5) the institute calls for "We need a windfall profits tax!", yet shows a graph on revenue and ignores that we have a super profits tax on O&G. Do you feel they are misleading you and others?
Where is the evidence that Australia taxes at 63%?
 
It was more an observation than suggestion. Look at how the French treat pension changes as opposed to Australians.

What would I do? Whinge on the internet.
I'm not sure following the French is the best option, of course noting their pension protests are in part due to Macron not taking those changes to the last election.
 
I'm not sure following the French is the best option, of course noting their pension protests are in part due to Macron not taking those changes to the last election.
Do you have a better response in mind?
 
Here are some suggestions … Ken Henry suggest 100% over a certain figure.



The problem is stopping government from spending the extra revenue.

This is why a sovereign is needed. To stop Dutch disease etc… have you watched the video I posted on the Norwegian fund?

it is difficult to hold a discussion on the matter when the misleading Australian Institute is the meme twitter reference and a Guardian article that references the meme and holds this out to be journalism.

Can we agree never to post a meme referencing revenues which then refers to profits based taxes? This should automatically identify misleading and deceptive conduct unless they expressly explain why revenues are relevant.



Further I am not against 100% taxes and for this we need to look at the base.

This is one reason why I like Australia's tax base on resources as it has a upfront application cost, an annual holding cost, a royalty, a corporate tax and a super profits tax. The last three equate to 63% and adding the first two probably only adds 1% more. Then add any native title which probably only captures onshore but this would be an extra 3-6%. Conveniently not many memes would show all the figures.

The other aspect I like about the base is the royalty. As even if there is not profit, the govt gets a slice ensuring no material is sold without a tax take. I would like to see this extended to offshore.
 
Do you have a better response in mind?
I actually think indexing pensions to take account for an aging population is responsible.
I wasn't challenging a poster about discussing it on a discussion forum either.

When introduced (1928?) the pension kicked in after the average life expectancy in Australia.
Pre changes, it was going to start more than 2 decades before (65 vs 86 years).

The French are protesting a raise from 62 to 64.
 
Where is the evidence that Australia taxes at 63%?


For offshore projects, governments receive up to 58 per cent of taxable profits through corporate income tax, PRRT, excise and royalties. For onshore projects, it’s up to 63.25 per cent through state royalties, licence fees and corporate income tax.


I will find the ATO release on this figure
 
I actually think indexing pensions to take account for an aging population is responsible.
I wasn't challenging a poster about discussing it on a discussion forum either.

When introduced (1928?) the pension kicked in after the average life expectancy in Australia.
Pre changes, it was going to start more than 2 decades before (65 vs 86 years).

The French are protesting a raise from 62 to 64.
That's the beauty of it. The French refuse to be ****ed with.

You can raise the pension by 5+ years in Australia, tell us we can't exercise outside for more than an hour, give us a curfew, control our social media, and we'll cop it on the chin. We're weak.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sure you're right on all counts.
 

For offshore projects, governments receive up to 58 per cent of taxable profits through corporate income tax, PRRT, excise and royalties. For onshore projects, it’s up to 63.25 per cent through state royalties, licence fees and corporate income tax.


I will find the ATO release on this figure
Paywalled article, can you post the full text?
 
Paywalled article, can you post the full text?
Hit refresh and press stop.

Oil and gas pay their way on tax​

There are no grounds to call for a windfall tax on the record-breaking petroleum industry. There are plenty of levies already.

Samantha McCullochOil and gas industry representative
Oct 12, 2022 – 3.11pm


The strength and value of Australia’s oil and gas industry is on display in record-breaking LNG export figures and growing economic benefits being delivered to the Australian public.
This is shown in our sector’s broad economic contribution to Australia – which was recently put at enabling almost $500 billion of activity annually.
Those are things you don’t see in state and federal budget papers – like our support of 165,000 jobs, powering of homes and businesses, backing of key industries like manufacturing and facilitation of economic growth, especially in regional Australia.
29a6049dfc29bc95cbf8a3f86062544ceb216e58

Pluto LNG plant: the resources industry has kicked off an export bonanza. Woodside
But direct contribution to the public is also important, and it’s there to see.
In growing federal and state government revenue receipts, billions of dollars in new revenue from our industry is helping to bankroll critical public services and infrastructure like roads, schools and hospitals.

New forecasts released last week by the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) further demonstrate this, with LNG exporters forecast to contribute an extra $9 billion to federal and state governments this financial year.
Corporate income tax, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), state royalties and excise are expected to rise to a total of around $13.8 billion this financial year, up from around $4.8 billion previously.

Changing tax profile​

These forecasts show the way the sector’s taxation profile is changing and our role in supporting communities to thrive into the future.
They also underscore why governments must continue to resist calls for a windfall profits tax.
For our sector, Australia already has a profits tax in place in the form of the PRRT at 40 percent, which is applied in addition to corporate income tax and other royalties and payments.

The tax system waits until much of the cost of oil and gas company investments is recovered before considerable amounts of tax is paid.
For offshore projects, governments receive up to 58 per cent of taxable profits through corporate income tax, PRRT, excise and royalties. For onshore projects, it’s up to 63.25 per cent through state royalties, licence fees and corporate income tax.
The growing public returns we are seeing illustrate the benefit to the Australian public of these long-term taxation settings that underpin our industry’s large, capital-intensive and complex projects.
Some of the tax debate is dated because there is a lag between publicly available data and the performance of our industry.
Which other sector invests billions of dollars into projects that ensure energy security, taking on huge risk years before any production actually begins and revenue starts to flow?
Much of the debate about taxation is also out of date because there is a lag between publicly available data and the performance of our industry.

For example, the most recent ATO Tax Transparency Report is for the 2019-20 income tax year when companies with a year end December 31 2022 will soon be lodging returns for the 2022-23 income tax year.
APPEA is working with our members and the Australian Taxation Office to improve how the industry shares information.
Our members are also looking to make more current data easily accessible to the public through their own country taxes paid reports.
We saw this last month when Chevron Australia announced that its expected tax bill would grow considerably.
The taxation profile of the industry has clearly evolved over recent years and the settings in place have delivered substantial benefits.
The sector invested over $300 billion in seven LNG projects between 2010 and 2020 – a massive amount of money committed years before we saw the industry break export earnings records as a world leader for gas supply.

Current economic conditions, including higher than forecasted prices, have put the industry on a much faster track to make up for the losses accumulated during the construction of these huge projects, bringing forward timeframes for tax payments.
This week we saw confirmation of Australia’s LNG success again, with Canberra upgrading export earnings forecasts to $90 billion this financial year, up from the record $70 billion previously.

New supply​

Our exports are a global success story by any measure, and we should acknowledge the industry investment, government policies and stable investment environment that helped produce that.
Success and increased profits are often mentioned as a sign the industry needs to be taxed more.
But as we are currently seeing, higher profits mean higher government receipts. And these demands ignore the fact that the industry is also reinvesting in new supply to continue to deliver energy security and future economic benefits to Australia.

We have announced more than $20 billion of investments in new supply over the past two years, even as bans and uncertainty in some jurisdictions hampered our efforts.
Australia’s taxation policy settings need to provide certainty and stability to encourage future investment.
The oil and gas industry stands ready to invest more in new supply and deliver more economic returns for Australians.
The current taxation system supports this global success story in the interests of its owners – the Australian public.
Samantha McCulloch is the chief executive of the Australian Petroleum Production &
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top