Politics Should we NOW nationalize our mining sector?

[Seeds]

I don't understand why Australia doesn't have a better sovereign-wealth fund.

Why give the resources to international companies for essentially nothing when it's ours

Im not sure you understand what a sovereign wealth fund is. It has nothing to do with foreign owenership vs domestic. Its simply a concept of government saving its tax revenue from the mine rather than spending it. We dont have a specific mining sovereign wealth fund at all cos our government chooses not to to seperate and save our mining revenue. It just goes back into the pot and is spent with all our other revenue

 

[kranky al]

lol

you demand a framework to generate government revenue using mining companies revenue as a base. You are not only granted your wish immediately but also pleasantly surprised we have had this all along.

now you're upset and revert to making false statements despite knowing they are false statements. why do you feel this is reasonable behaviour?

This amazing alternate universe in which you claim that raising the gst to 25% would fix the corporate tax avoidance that somehow simultaneously doesn't exist if we arent talking about raising gst…


And im on the melons?


Youre off your melon son….

 

[Power Raid]

This amazing alternate universe in which you claim that raising the gst to 25% would fix the corporate tax avoidance that somehow simultaneously doesn't exist if we arent talking about raising gst…


And im on the melons?


Youre off your melon son….

what melons are you on?

firstly you suggest we have a royalty system on mining companies.............and I confirm we have exactly what you suggest which is levied by state governments and separately indigenous people. I have even called for raising royalties on O&G, iron and coal.

but now you seem a little embarrassed to find out your suggestion was implemented over 100 years ago.


now onto your look over hear thingie, to camouflage your embarrassment, I have acknowledge for ever that transfer pricing and tax avoidance has been an issue for ever and a day. This is why I suggest we increase GST.

 

[Taylor]

It's fairly common to just suggest those companies and individuals contributing most to the economy, income tax etc aren't paying "their fair share".

We should have the discussion with numbers on what the expectations are for services and just what the tax would need to be to achieve that.

"Their fair share" always means more, enough to buy whatever else wanted

 

[kranky al]

Nothing to see here.

 

[Taylor]

Is that one of those articles where the writer doesn't clearly define that when they say "paid no tax" they don't consider anything except a very specific taxation that they are using, similar to the articles like that in the US where the writer ignores all state income tax for the purposes of a headline using the federal income tax as a clickbait?

Remember when the MRRT came in and it allowed the royalties to be lifted, reducing the new tax take but lifting the amount of money extracted to government? That's the sort of process by which companies can "pay no tax".

 

[Power Raid]

View attachment 1562530
Nothing to see here.

can you stop posting bullshit? this is an important issue and deserves more respect than misleading and deceptive articles

1) we know the guardian engages in misleading and deceptive conduct and this article is no different
2) the 168 companies included subsidiaries of corporate tax groups. essentially they pay no tax because the group pays it on their behalf. This was disclosed but to the average punter not well understood and thus clearly designed to get click bait and mislead.
3) this includes companies that have invested in massive projects and have legitimate off sets that take time to unwind, especially during ramp up. Again misleading.
4) as per 3) companies like qantas that made huge losses require time to unwind these losses and then fell back into the covid no fly slump


this is terrible journalism and should not have been published without:
1) considering group entities which is the basis of tax
2) discuss the top 10 major examples (note the 163 looks more like 50-80 after group entities)

 

[Kram]

I have family that was in senior management of a mid sized WA gold miner for years until recently moving on to a developer. Once I very quickly asked them about resource companies paying tax. They claimed that they definitely paid their fair share but there were mechanisms that less scrupulous ones could pull to dodge it such as iirc channeling money into off shore accounts?

If I remember I'll ask them again because the question is very interesting and they should actually have a real idea what they are talking about.

 

[Taylor]

An accountant charging over four figures an hour once told me that if I owned a mining company I could channel profit into buying more mining tenements and have zero profit to be taxed on - then when selling the tenements in later years the government would get it's slice.

So it wasn't an avoidance tactic, but it was a delaying one.

 

[Power Raid]

I have family that was in senior management of a mid sized WA gold miner for years until recently moving on to a developer. Once I very quickly asked them about resource companies paying tax. They claimed that they definitely paid their fair share but there were mechanisms that less scrupulous ones could pull to dodge it such as iirc channeling money into off shore accounts?

If I remember I'll ask them again because the question is very interesting and they should actually have a real idea what they are talking about.

This is unlikely for gold as the tax is payable when it leaves the mint

Further franking and withholding negates this opportunity

 

[Gethelred]

1) we know the guardian engages in misleading and deceptive conduct and this article is no different

Off topic, but can you provide evidence of this?

For clarification's sake, I'm asking as a poster not a moderator. If the guardian's suspect, I'd like to know.

 

[Power Raid]

Off topic, but can you provide evidence of this?

For clarification's sake, I'm asking as a poster not a moderator. If the guardian's suspect, I'd like to know.

this article attests to this

why refer to companies that DO NOT pay tax because they are group entities that DO NOT PAY TAX as some great investigative journalism uncovering entities that DO NOT pay tax?

In past articles they focused on the gas industry, in the FY2015, as doing dodgy tax evasion when a quick look at the gas price explains everything

They've mislead readers on the cost of renewable power which is limited by their definition as the cost of producing power when it works rather than the cost of supply reliable power

The dodgy maths on nursing homes

The pressure on the WA government to relax it's rigid border rules

You're talking about the misuse of capitalism, not capitalism itself This example is an exception to the rule. Again, not the rule, these are exceptions. I did address this in my previous post to you, you'd be better served if you avoided being intentionally offensive. A bit of diplomacy will...

www.bigfooty.com

and the list goes on with coal, adani and just about every other topic

Search results for query: guardian

www.bigfooty.com

they are as bad as NewsCorp

 

[Gethelred]

this article attests to this

why refer to companies that DO NOT pay tax because they are group entities that DO NOT PAY TAX as some great investigative journalism uncovering entities that DO NOT pay tax?

In past articles they focused on the gas industry, in the FY2015, as doing dodgy tax evasion when a quick look at the gas price explains everything

They've mislead readers on the cost of renewable power which is limited by their definition as the cost of producing power when it works rather than the cost of supply reliable power

The dodgy maths on nursing homes

The pressure on the WA government to relax it's rigid border rules

You're talking about the misuse of capitalism, not capitalism itself This example is an exception to the rule. Again, not the rule, these are exceptions. I did address this in my previous post to you, you'd be better served if you avoided being intentionally offensive. A bit of diplomacy will...

www.bigfooty.com

and the list goes on with coal, adani and just about every other topic

Search results for query: guardian

www.bigfooty.com

they are as bad as NewsCorp

Forgive me, but this isn't evidence. This is you claiming they said something without demonstrating they said it, then claiming they're lying.

 

[Power Raid]

Forgive me, but this isn't evidence. This is you claiming they said something without demonstrating they said it, then claiming they're lying.

The article link is here:

Household names: 168 Australian companies have paid no tax since 2013

ATO deputy commissioner says there are ‘legitimate reasons why a company may not pay tax’

www.theguardian.com

and the post link is just above

Politics - Should we NOW nationalize our mining sector?

I don't understand why Australia doesn't have a better sovereign-wealth fund. Why give the resources to international companies for essentially nothing when it's ours Im not sure you understand what a sovereign wealth fund is. It has nothing to do with foreign owenership vs domestic. Its...

www.bigfooty.com

This is not a claim but rather evidenced in the post trail

 

[Gethelred]

The article link is here:

Household names: 168 Australian companies have paid no tax since 2013

ATO deputy commissioner says there are ‘legitimate reasons why a company may not pay tax’

www.theguardian.com

and the post link is just above

Politics - Should we NOW nationalize our mining sector?

I don't understand why Australia doesn't have a better sovereign-wealth fund. Why give the resources to international companies for essentially nothing when it's ours Im not sure you understand what a sovereign wealth fund is. It has nothing to do with foreign owenership vs domestic. Its...

www.bigfooty.com

This is not a claim but rather evidenced in the post trail

From the article linked:

Reasons why the companies have paid no tax vary. Some, including Lendlease, are part of property trust groups, where paying tax is the responsibility of the investor rather than the company.

They're admitting to what you're accusing them of hiding.

That's not deceptive, PR.

There also wasn't a link to the article citing 'dodgy maths in nursing homes' in the links provided, either.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't me defending the Guardian exactly. You contended that they are as untrustworthy as Newscorp, that they're a misinformative link; if you could prove it, I'll start moderating it as misinformative.

But to this point, you've not been able to demonstrate that they're misinformative with the evidence displayed.

 

[Power Raid]

From the article linked:

They're admitting to what you're accusing them of hiding.

That's not deceptive, PR.

There also wasn't a link to the article citing 'dodgy maths in nursing homes' in the links provided, either.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't me defending the Guardian exactly. You contended that they are as untrustworthy as Newscorp, that they're a misinformative link; if you could prove it, I'll start moderating it as misinformative.

But to this point, you've not been able to demonstrate that they're misinformative with the evidence displayed.

Of course it is misleading, otherwise you simply don’t report a headline number to create deception.

Rather one would exclude those that are not relevant such as group entities.

Can you confirm the actual headline number? NO!

Why? Because it was designed to mislead, infotain and generate emotion rather than inform and provide relevant facts

 

[Gethelred]

Of course it is misleading, otherwise you simply don’t report a headline number to create deception.

Rather one would exclude those.

Can you confirm the actual headline number? NO!

Why? Because it was designed to mislead, infotain and generate emotion rather than inform and provide relevant facts

You did see the quote from the article included, correct?

The headline is also true; there are 168 Australian businesses that don't pay tax. That's not in dispute. You're saying the article is misleading because it doesn't in the headline say the quoted section.

Here's how said headline would look:

Household names: 168 Australian companies have paid no tax since 2013 and the reasons vary between why as some pay tax through parent companies

That's rather lengthy for a headline.

Methinks you're reaching. Why you're reaching I'll leave up to you to decide.

 

[Power Raid]

From the article linked:

They're admitting to what you're accusing them of hiding.

That's not deceptive, PR.

There also wasn't a link to the article citing 'dodgy maths in nursing homes' in the links provided, either.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't me defending the Guardian exactly. You contended that they are as untrustworthy as Newscorp, that they're a misinformative link; if you could prove it, I'll start moderating it as misinformative.

But to this point, you've not been able to demonstrate that they're misinformative with the evidence displayed.

Another way of looking at it is the headline number is false so Kranky was misled as he was referencing the article supporting his concerns regarding the issue.

Or kranky new it was misleading and attempted to mislead others, knowing full well the article said nothing and presented no useful information

What’s your call?

 

[Power Raid]

You did see the quote from the article included, correct?

The headline is also true; there are 168 Australian businesses that don't pay tax. That's not in dispute. You're saying the article is misleading because it doesn't in the headline say the quoted section.

Here's how said headline would look:

That's rather lengthy for a headline.

Methinks you're reaching. Why you're reaching I'll leave up to you to decide.

So what is the relevant number?

 

[Gethelred]

So what is the relevant number?

You made the claim, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. If you have the number and the reasoning to dispute their figure, you can provide it.

It's not up to me to verify your claims for you, PR.

 

[Power Raid]

Another way of looking at it is the headline number is false so Kranky was misled as he was referencing the article supporting his concerns regarding the issue.

Or kranky new it was misleading and attempted to mislead others, knowing full well the article said nothing and presented no useful information

What’s your call?

You’re arguing about a title where I prefer to look at the facts and what can be gained from those facts.

This article tried to be click bait on companies that don’t pay tax and what a scandal that is……..ie Kranky’s take away

Where the article was actually about group entities and other proper tax principles

 

[Power Raid]

You made the claim, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. If you have the number and the reasoning to dispute their figure, you can provide it.

It's not up to me to verify your claims for you, PR.

I have already done this in the thread above but unfortunately the article doesn’t provide relevant to form an accurate view.

Why would a journalist report facts in such a way people could be mislead and further no informed position could be gained.

What I highlight is a fact…..that is no one is informed after reading the article; and
You and I believe the fact presented, being 168, is no a relevant figure

 

[Taylor]

It was posted in this thread because the headline and the first writings were misleading people.

It's why it came up in discussion at all

 

[Gethelred]

I have already done this in the thread above but unfortunately the article doesn’t provide relevant to form a view.

Why would a journalist report facts in such a way people could be mislead and further no informed position could be gained.

What I highlight is a fact…..that is no one is informed after reading the article; and
You and I believe the fact presented, being 168, is no a relevant figure

Again: the facts are not in dispute here. You do not contend that 168 is wrong, but that it is misleading because not all of the companies that have not paid tax have done so... what? Immorally?

The problem you have is the behaviour you've accused them of exhibiting isn't actually there. They haven't hid anything; it's there in the quoted section. They openly admit to the thing you say that makes their number misleading.

Either you must provide your own number and why it's correct or demonstrate how they're being misleading with theirs. You've done neither of those things here.

 

[Power Raid]

Again: the facts are not in dispute here. You do not contend that 168 is wrong, but that it is misleading because not all of the companies that have not paid tax have done so... what? Immorally?

The problem you have is the behaviour you've accused them of exhibiting isn't actually there. They haven't hid anything; it's there in the quoted section. They openly admit to the thing you say that makes their number misleading.

Either you must provide your own number and why it's correct or demonstrate how they're being misleading with theirs. You've done neither of those things here.

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?