Politics Should we NOW nationalize our mining sector?

[Gethelred]

Please ask Kranky why he posted it.

Did he post it to inform others that tax consolidation exists?

Or did he post it to support his view companies don’t pay their fair share tax?

But before you ask, why do you think he posted it?

Could you please stop trying to change the subject?

I asked you why you think the Guardian is a misinformative source. You've staked your pick to this particular thing, after I gave you essentially an open bill; you could've chosen anything else.

You have labelled this source misinformative, and your reason why is that the article doesn't state that some of these businesses are corporate groups and their parent companies pay it for them in the headline, despite it saying it in the body of the article.

This isn't misinformative. You cannot fit an entire article's complexity into a headline.

We can let the thread progress from here now if you like, but this isn't a demonstration that the Guardian is a misinformative source.

 

[Power Raid]

Could you please stop trying to change the subject?

I asked you why you think the Guardian is a misinformative source. You've staked your pick to this particular thing, after I gave you essentially an open bill; you could've chosen anything else.

You have labelled this source misinformative, and your reason why is that the article doesn't state that some of these businesses are corporate groups and their parent companies pay it for them in the headline, despite it saying it in the body of the article.

This isn't misinformative. You cannot fit an entire article's complexity into a headline.

We can let the thread progress from here now if you like, but this isn't a demonstration that the Guardian is a misinformative source.

The fact you won't answer the question speaks volumes

By answering the question, you do not have to accept an opinion and nor do I have to write a thesis

In my opinion, Kranky posted the reference to support his concerns about companies not paying tax (as opposed to informing people that tax consolidation results in a single entity paying tax on behalf of the group). Yet the article does not support Kranky's concerns whatsoever.

Thus he was either mislead or I'm wrong and he was trying to mislead. Simply ask Kranky the question and before your do, answer it yourself..........or run along.

 

[Power Raid]

kranky al did you post the gif, which was a Guardian article to discuss Group Tax or companies not paying their fair share of tax?

 

[Gethelred]

The fact you won't answer the question speaks volumes

By answering the question, you do not have to accept an opinion and nor do I have to write a thesis

In my opinion, Kranky posted the reference to support his concerns about companies not paying tax (as opposed to informing people that tax consolidation results in a single entity paying tax on behalf of the group). Yet the article does not support Kranky's concerns whatsoever.

Thus he was either mislead or I'm wrong and he was trying to mislead. Simply ask Kranky the question and before your do, answer it yourself..........or run along.

Or alternatively, I'm purely here as a function of questioning your depiction of the Guardian as misinformative.

Try telling me to run along again, Power Raid, and see what happens.

 

[Power Raid]

Or alternatively, I'm purely here as a function of questioning your depiction of the Guardian as misinformative.

Try telling me to run along again, Power Raid, and see what happens.

once we get through Kranky's response we can then get onto the Guardians false numbers on nursing homes

but I do note you keep your distance on reposnding to the simple question

 

[Gethelred]

once we get through Kranky's response we can then get onto the Guardians false numbers on nursing homes

but I do note you keep your distance on reposnding to the simple question

I note you keep trying to change the subject.

I've told you why I'm here, what I'm interested in talking about. I'm not compelled to follow you on a tangent I'm unwilling to entertain, just as you don't have to respond to my posts.

I. Am. Here. Because. You. Called. The. Guardian. Misinformative.

I was curious to see what your evidence was, what you're basing that on. You've not demonstrated it, and now you're continuously trying to shift the conversation, either back on me ("why won't you answer my question?") or back at Kranky ("why did you post the image?").

Why Kranky did it is immaterial to what you think, PR. I asked you a question, you provided an inadequate answer.

That's quite literally all that happened.

 

[Power Raid]

I note you keep trying to change the subject.

I've told you why I'm here, what I'm interested in talking about. I'm not compelled to follow you on a tangent I'm unwilling to entertain, just as you don't have to respond to my posts.

I. Am. Here. Because. You. Called. The. Guardian. Misinformative.

I was curious to see what your evidence was, what you're basing that on. You've not demonstrated it, and now you're continuously trying to shift the conversation, either back on me ("why won't you answer my question?") or back at Kranky ("why did you post the image?").

Why Kranky did it is immaterial to what you think, PR. I asked you a question, you provided an inadequate answer.

That's quite literally all that happened.

I will outline my position again....

1) Kranky posted an article referring to "168" Australian company's have paid no tax since 2013 after discussing tax avoidance issues including transfer pricing
2) After researching the source of the reference, I noted it was a Guardian article and then read the details in the article as I more often than not find misleading information in their articles
3) Reading the article it was noted a few things were misleading
a) no mention of an efficient franking and withholding tax system (this is important but let's leave this)
b) the article flip flops between facts "ATO Commissioner says legitimate" but then flips to "despite $9.85B" to create doubt in people's minds as to how this could be reasonable or legitimate
c) The Guardian claims data dumps has been provided iformation to work out who hasn't paid taxes sine 2013 but this is misleading, as they are looking at individual subsidiaries but making it sound like big name companies haven't paid taxes (evidence by Kranky) by emphasising "BIG NAME BRANDS" (when this is false)
d) Lend Lease should not have been included as 1) it is NOT A COMPANY but cleverly slipped in straight after referring to BRANDS. FYI trusts don't pay tax if all the profits are distributed and they are not operating entities
e) but what can be established from reading the article? NOTHING. There are no facts that support or otherwise the issue of tax avoidance or companies not paying their fair share. If Kranky or others felt companies pay or don't pay their fair share or tax from the article, simply demonstrates it is misleading. As this can not be determined from the article and thus begs the question, why Kranky posted it. This is why I ask you and Kranky to put forward your position.
f) any article referring to revenue in an income tax article raises alarm bells
4) the gif is far more misleading as it has removed key parts of the article

 

[Gethelred]

I will outline my position again....

1) Kranky posted an article referring to "168" Australian company's have paid no tax since 2013 after discussing tax avoidance issues including transfer pricing
2) After researching the source of the reference, I noted it was a Guardian article and then read the details in the article as I more often than not find misleading information in their articles
3) Reading the article it was noted a few things were misleading
a) no mention of an efficient franking and withholding tax system (this is important but let's leave this)
b) the article flip flops between facts "ATO Commissioner says legitimate" but then flips to "despite $9.85B" to create doubt in people's minds as to how this could be reasonable or legitimate
c) The Guardian claims data dumps has been provided iformation to work out who hasn't paid taxes sine 2013 but this is misleading, as they are looking at individual subsidiaries but making it sound like big name companies haven't paid taxes (evidence by Kranky) by emphasising "BIG NAME BRANDS" (when this is false)
d) Lend Lease should not have been included as 1) it is NOT A COMPANY but cleverly slipped in straight after referring to BRANDS. FYI trusts don't pay tax if all the profits are distributed and they are not operating entities
e) but what can be established from reading the article? NOTHING. There are no facts that support or otherwise the issue of tax avoidance or companies not paying their fair share. If Kranky or others felt companies pay or don't pay their fair share or tax from the article, simply demonstrates it is misleading. As this can not be determined from the article and thus begs the question, why Kranky posted it. This is why I ask you and Kranky to put forward your position.
f) any article referring to revenue in an income tax article raises alarm bells
4) the gif is far more misleading as it has removed key parts of the article

...

Then WHY didn't you say that, when I originally asked you?

This post is more or less precisely what I asked for, and outlines your opinion as to why the article is misleading. It's a little short on evidence - a fair amount of it swings on your judgement of each point - but it's more by far than you'd given me to this point.

 

[Power Raid]

...

Then WHY didn't you say that, when I originally asked you?

This post is more or less precisely what I asked for, and outlines your opinion as to why the article is misleading. It's a little short on evidence - a fair amount of it swings on your judgement of each point - but it's more by far than you'd given me to this point.

thank you

The way The Guardian writes their articles is an exact model of how to mislead and deceive. They put down facts, then weave in other facts which lead people to an outcome that is deceptive.

If this was to be written without the intent of misleading and deceptive conduct would be more like this

Guardian Completes Review of Corporate Tax​

Information released by the ATO, highlighted 168 entities tax that haven't paid tax since 2013. The ATO deputy commissioner says there are ‘legitimate reasons why a company may not pay tax’.

The Guardian did a quick review of the Commissioner's representations and noted no anomalies, as the entities either were non-taxable entities such as trust, had tax paid on their behalf from the parent company or had tax losses from prior years.



This is factual and not misleading but hardly click bait worthy