Now Xstrata exposed as liars.

[Dippers Donuts]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/xstrata-claims-on-tax-and-job-losses-do-not-add-up-20100608-xtm7.html

In May Xstrata said it had paid $4.3 billion in tax and royalties since 2003. A BusinessDay analysis of the company's accounts shows the miner paid $2.2 billion in royalties, indicating it had paid $2.1 billion in income tax over the period. Since 2003, Xstrata has earned $96.5 billion in revenue and made $12.8 billion in profit, paying tax at an average effective rate of 16.2 per cent - 33.6 per cent including royalties.

The house of cards is really starting to unravel for these liars.
Stick phat Ruddster, the worm is starting to turn.

 

[morgoth]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/xstrata-claims-on-tax-and-job-losses-do-not-add-up-20100608-xtm7.html

In May Xstrata said it had paid $4.3 billion in tax and royalties since 2003. A BusinessDay analysis of the company's accounts shows the miner paid $2.2 billion in royalties, indicating it had paid $2.1 billion in income tax over the period. Since 2003, Xstrata has earned $96.5 billion in revenue and made $12.8 billion in profit, paying tax at an average effective rate of 16.2 per cent - 33.6 per cent including royalties.

The house of cards is really starting to unravel for these liars.
Stick phat Ruddster, the worm is starting to turn.

Did they take into account the companies that Xastra has taken over in that time and consolidate there tax payments into the numbers? I bet they didn't. Xastra can be investigated by regulators for any misleading statements to the market so I doubt their figures are wrong, directors can go to jail.


So 33.6% total tax v the 13 - 17% claimed by Swan. Even if their figures are right it still shows they are paying double what Swan claims. So where's your comment on that 'lie'? Pity that Swan cannot be charged with false and misleading statements.

And at the end of the day Ernst Henry's expansion will not go ahead and the coal project is mothballed.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Did they take into account the companies that Xastra has taken over in that time and consolidate there tax payments into the numbers? I bet they didn't. Xastra can be investigated by regulators for any misleading statements to the market so I doubt their figures are wrong, directors can go to jail.


So 33.6% total tax v the 13 - 17% claimed by Swan. Even if their figures are right it still shows they are paying double what Swan claims. So where's your comment on that 'lie'? Pity that Swan cannot be charged with false and misleading statements.

And at the end of the day Ernst Henry's expansion will not go ahead and the coal project is mothballed.

Simply maths - They have been sprung lying and they cant squirm out of it.
They were the ones who confirmed the 4.3b tax figure including royalties.
Take out the royalties (which are not a tax they are a cost of production, ie they receive a benefit for the royalties paid) and voila - 16% effective tax rate.
Liar liars pants on fire!.

 

[Max zero]

Simply maths - They have been sprung lying and they cant squirm out of it.
They were the ones who confirmed the 4.3b tax figure including royalties.
Take out the royalties (which are not a tax they are a cost of production, ie they receive a benefit for the royalties paid) and voila - 16% effective tax rate.
Liar liars pants on fire!.

So when is the ASIC investigation starting for the false and misleading statements?

 

[King Elvis]

So when is the ASIC investigation starting for the false and misleading statements?

Bingo.

He's clinging onto one set of the alleged figures of one company (who refused to disclose their full data to BusinessDay), in spite of the fact that half a dozen respected accounting/finance firms have all stated that the Mining Companies pay around 30% tax; and the ATO data matches this.

Presented with the figures, the company confirmed the amount of royalties, but said the tax it had paid was ''more than'' $2.1 billion. It stood by its figure of 40 per cent, saying it could ''certainly validate'' it on a ''year-by-year'' basis.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

33.6 per cent including royalties.

Two things:

1. Isn't the company tax 30%? If so, then Xstrata has paid 3.6% above other companies maximum potential tax/royalties. Its a pity that the media do not report on corporations that minimise their taxation by offshore schemes. Are those media companies hiding something?

2. The krudd "gang of four" initially declared that the mining sector pay only 17%. Is that a blatant lie?

Someone should investigate the books of the Sydney morning herald's parent company fairfax and see how they stack up versus the mining companies.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

So when is the ASIC investigation starting for the false and misleading statements?

Why dont you ask them?

 

[ralphmalph]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Someone should investigate the books of the Sydney morning herald's parent company fairfax and see how they stack up versus the mining companies.

Relevance?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Two things:

1. Isn't the company tax 30%? If so, then Xstrata has paid 3.6% above other companies maximum potential tax/royalties. Its a pity that the media do not report on corporations that minimise their taxation by offshore schemes. Are those media companies hiding something?

2. The krudd "gang of four" initially declared that the mining sector pay only 17%. Is that a blatant lie?

Someone should investigate the books of the Sydney morning herald's parent company fairfax and see how they stack up versus the mining companies.

With all the concessions and rebates these guys get its very easy to get their effective tax rates down to minimal levels. I think thats whats confusing you - they still pay the 30% company tax.
People seem to be confused a lot by royalties and tax.

 

[Hawkamania!]

With all the concessions and rebates these guys get its very easy to get their effective tax rates down to minimal levels. I think thats whats confusing you - they still pay the 30% company tax.
People seem to be confused a lot by royalties and tax.

So what you are posting is that its fine for other corporations to minimise their tax to minimal levels from the 30% company tax, but the mining companies can't? This is hypocrisy exemplified.

Last I checked 33.6% return to government coffers was a larger percentage than companies paying 30% or less. I'm sure you will argue against that logic.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

So what you are posting is that its fine for other corporations to minimise their tax to minimal levels from the 30% company tax, but the mining companies can't? This is hypocrisy exemplified.

Last I checked 33.6% return to government coffers was a larger percentage than companies paying 30% or less. I'm sure you will argue against that logic.

No what i am suggesting is that with all the rebates and concessions that are unique to the mining industry there is no way in hell they pay anywhere near the rates they have been bleating about. Again, royalties are not a tax, they are a cost for raw materials.

 

[Hawkamania!]

No what i am suggesting is that with all the rebates and concessions that are unique to the mining industry there is no way in hell they pay anywhere near the rates they have been bleating about. Again, royalties are not a tax, they are a cost for raw materials.

Will you admit that 33.6% return to government coffers is a larger percentage than companies paying 30% or less?

 

[King Elvis]

No what i am suggesting is that with all the rebates and concessions that are unique to the mining industry there is no way in hell they pay anywhere near the rates they have been bleating about. Again, royalties are not a tax, they are a cost for raw materials.

Then they should reduce some of the rebates and concessions.

 

[Eagle87]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

With all the concessions and rebates these guys get its very easy to get their effective tax rates down to minimal levels. I think thats whats confusing you - they still pay the 30% company tax.
People seem to be confused a lot by royalties and tax.

I have asked you to list them before. You haven't, you don't know what they are do you?

I shall assist. Depreciation is the biggest. All businesses can access depreciation but shock horror a massively capital intensive industry has high claims for depreciation.

Now, you name all the other concessions, or even some of them OR **** off with you party politicals and your general cluelessness.

*awaits trite response that has been copied from someone else*

 

[Doctor Jolly]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/xstrata-claims-on-tax-and-job-losses-do-not-add-up-20100608-xtm7.html

In May Xstrata said it had paid $4.3 billion in tax and royalties since 2003. A BusinessDay analysis of the company's accounts shows the miner paid $2.2 billion in royalties, indicating it had paid $2.1 billion in income tax over the period. Since 2003, Xstrata has earned $96.5 billion in revenue and made $12.8 billion in profit, paying tax at an average effective rate of 16.2 per cent - 33.6 per cent including royalties.

The house of cards is really starting to unravel for these liars.
Stick phat Ruddster, the worm is starting to turn.

What are they refering to here as "income tax" ?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

I have asked you to list them before. You haven't, you don't know what they are do you?

I shall assist. Depreciation is the biggest. All businesses can access depreciation but shock horror a massively capital intensive industry has high claims for depreciation.

Now, you name all the other concessions, or even some of them OR **** off with you party politicals and your general cluelessness.

*awaits trite response that has been copied from someone else*

Info is from an article I posted here previously.

Let's begin with fuel. You and I pay 38¢ per litre in excise when we fill up at a petrol station. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto also pay tax on their fuel, but the government gives nearly all of it back through the Fuel Tax Credits program. The mining industry is the largest beneficiary of this scheme (which is available to a range of businesses), receiving $1.7 billion per year in credits.

Next, consider the generous tax breaks available for mining investment. If I decide to start up a factory, I'm not allowed to claim the cost of equipment as a business expense in the first year - I have to depreciate the equipment over time, based on how long the equipment is expected to last. But if I'm a mining company, I can deduct the full cost of exploration immediately, or even 150 per cent of the cost of exploration in some cases.
A special tax amendment the petroleum lobby snuck through in 2002 to override explicit determinations by the Commissioner of Taxation gives further preferential treatment to oil and gas assets. So, a petroleum company gets to assume for tax purposes that an oil rig, for example, will only last for 20 years, even if in truth it is likely to be productive for much longer.
These tax breaks on exploration and equipment cost taxpayers more than $1 billion per year.

The mining industry pays nothing for its greenhouse pollution, either. In 2006, the 65 million tonnes of pollution attributable to the mining sector had an implicit cost of $1.3 billion, at a very conservative cost of carbon of $20 per tonne. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, while most industries have become more energy efficient over the past three decades, the mining industry has become less so. It takes twice the energy to get a dollar's worth of minerals out of the ground today as it did 30 years ago.

And then there are direct government services. Geoscience Australia's annual budget is $130 million, much of which goes to providing free data and services to the mining industry. The CSIRO and various government research centres chip in another $130 million per year in benefits to the industry. And for the research the miners have to do themselves, they get $160 million back per year in the form of research and development tax concessions

And that's before we've even begun to talk about government-provided roads, rail, ports, electricity networks and other infrastructure.
Mining is different from most other industries because it directly accesses publicly owned, non-renewable resources. It is appropriate that it pay for this privileged access, over and above its fair share of company tax

 

[Keys]

With all the concessions and rebates these guys get its very easy to get their effective tax rates down to minimal levels. I think thats whats confusing you - they still pay the 30% company tax.
People seem to be confused a lot by royalties and tax.

Yourself included it seems

 

[medusala]

No what i am suggesting is that with all the rebates and concessions that are unique to the mining industry there is no way in hell they pay anywhere near the rates they have been bleating about. Again, royalties are not a tax, they are a cost for raw materials.

Unique? Try TCF and Auto. Billions handed out plus tariffs.

What about construction? Kev wanted Ruddbank to help them out.

As for Xstrata did they not take over MIM? Were there not tax losses to be brought forward there?

Another epic fail of a thread by the fanbois.

 

[morgoth]

Unique? Try TCF and Auto. Billions handed out plus tariffs.

What about construction? Kev wanted Ruddbank to help them out.

As for Xstrata did they not take over MIM? Were there not tax losses to be brought forward there?

Another epic fail of a thread by the fanbois.

Well in fairness to him at least he provided a link and it was based on a Fairfax article. If Dipper knew much about markets he would know not to rely on anything they print. There finance journo's are ordinary, about a month behind what is actually happening.

The Australian business section is taking them to the cleaners.

 

[kimp]

So what you are posting is that its fine for other corporations to minimise their tax to minimal levels from the 30% company tax, but the mining companies can't? This is hypocrisy exemplified.

Last I checked 33.6% return to government coffers was a larger percentage than companies paying 30% or less. I'm sure you will argue against that logic.

The 33.6% quoted in the article INCLUDES royalties which are NOT taxes. They are payments for taking a non-replaceable substance from their owners ie Australia. Given the size of the stated royalty payments, form those firgures, they clearly pay nowhere near the nominal 30% company tax rate.

 

[Grin]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Info is from an article I posted here previously.

Let's begin with fuel. You and I pay 38¢ per litre in excise when we fill up at a petrol station. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto also pay tax on their fuel, but the government gives nearly all of it back through the Fuel Tax Credits program. The mining industry is the largest beneficiary of this scheme (which is available to a range of businesses), receiving $1.7 billion per year in credits.

Next, consider the generous tax breaks available for mining investment. If I decide to start up a factory, I'm not allowed to claim the cost of equipment as a business expense in the first year - I have to depreciate the equipment over time, based on how long the equipment is expected to last. But if I'm a mining company, I can deduct the full cost of exploration immediately, or even 150 per cent of the cost of exploration in some cases.
A special tax amendment the petroleum lobby snuck through in 2002 to override explicit determinations by the Commissioner of Taxation gives further preferential treatment to oil and gas assets. So, a petroleum company gets to assume for tax purposes that an oil rig, for example, will only last for 20 years, even if in truth it is likely to be productive for much longer.
These tax breaks on exploration and equipment cost taxpayers more than $1 billion per year.

The mining industry pays nothing for its greenhouse pollution, either. In 2006, the 65 million tonnes of pollution attributable to the mining sector had an implicit cost of $1.3 billion, at a very conservative cost of carbon of $20 per tonne. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, while most industries have become more energy efficient over the past three decades, the mining industry has become less so. It takes twice the energy to get a dollar's worth of minerals out of the ground today as it did 30 years ago.

And then there are direct government services. Geoscience Australia's annual budget is $130 million, much of which goes to providing free data and services to the mining industry. The CSIRO and various government research centres chip in another $130 million per year in benefits to the industry. And for the research the miners have to do themselves, they get $160 million back per year in the form of research and development tax concessions

And that's before we've even begun to talk about government-provided roads, rail, ports, electricity networks and other infrastructure.
Mining is different from most other industries because it directly accesses publicly owned, non-renewable resources. It is appropriate that it pay for this privileged access, over and above its fair share of company tax

Doesn't seem that Liberal party fanboys want to argue these facts.

 

[medusala]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Doesn't seem that Liberal party fanboys want to argue these facts.

Facts?

Getting a fuel rebate is open to other industries.

Exploration is not the same as depreciation, another fail.

When you have to produce this

The mining industry pays nothing for its greenhouse pollution, either

you are simply embarrassing yourself.

Where is all the rage re TCF and Auto?

Hypocrites.

 

[Grin]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Facts?

Getting a fuel rebate is open to other industries.

Exploration is not the same as depreciation, another fail.

When you have to produce this



you are simply embarrassing yourself.

Where is all the rage re TCF and Auto?

Hypocrites.

You can't be a real person.

You must be a Labor party fanboy parodying a mindless Lib.

 

[morgoth]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Doesn't seem that Liberal party fanboys want to argue these facts.

Cos its full of stupid assumptions. I mean the take this

'preferential treatment to oil and gas assets. So, a petroleum company gets to assume for tax purposes that an oil rig, for example, will only last for 20 years, even if in truth it is likely to be productive for much longer.

If you have depreciated it, you can no longer claim a deduction, so if it goes beyond 20 years the operators will pay more tax as they no longer have a deduction.

Exploration bears no relevence to depreciation so that is just an epic fail to compare the 2. And when it comes to depreciation the ATO provides tables for all asset classes so the rate will vary, even for differnent items in the one factory.

And you want us to respond? Do you think we like embarrasing the sheet lack of knowledge from the lefties? Maybe its time you stuck to talking about your next flex day or curriculum day.

 

[Max zero]

And that's before we've even begun to talk about government-provided roads, rail, ports, electricity networks and other infrastructure.
Mining is different from most other industries because it directly accesses publicly owned, non-renewable resources

Do they Mining companies just mine all these resources for nothing? I mean the Steel gets used to make Cars and the Cars themselves use Oil (or Gas).

Couldn't you say the Car Industry relies just as much on non renewable resources as well?