Now Xstrata exposed as liars.

[Eagle87]

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.

Why compare BHP & Rio with mum & dad? How about we compare them with other business?

This from the ATO website....

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/00093913.htm

From that article:

Fuel tax credits: get money back for your business

Don’t miss out

Did you know that from 1 July 2008 most businesses can claim fuel tax credits? If you haven’t checked your eligibility for a while, you may want to check again.

To date, you’ve been able to claim for fuel used in heavy vehicles travelling on a public road, if they had a gross vehicle mass (GVM) greater than 4.5 tonne. You’ve also been able to claim for activities such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and marine and rail transport.

Now you can also claim fuel tax credits for the diesel and petrol you use in a whole range of activities that weren’t eligible before, including machinery, plant and equipment used in activities such as construction, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, property management and landscaping.

So, basically, most business' can claim them. This is a big special break for mining how???

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.

Mining companies are covered by the same rules re depreciation. Based on the expected life of the asset.

Exploration costs are written off completely in accordance with the same view. International Accounting standards, which are followed in Australia, treat exploration costs as generally having no enduring value and as such they are expensed (I.e written off). The tax regime simply follows this. In other words the "how long they are expected to last" is zero, giving an immediate write off. Not a concession, simply proper accounting.

Try harder.

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.

Are you on drugs??

The ATO's published ruling on Effective lives of depreciating assets published in May 2000, has oil rigs listed at 10 years effective lives.

It's on the public record.

Maybe you can clarify your muddled thoughts.

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.

How much do other business pay for their greenhouse pollution?

Surely this line of argument is a complete ****ing joke.

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

R&D concessions are available to ALL Australian companies that do R&D. This is a ridiculous argument, I mean seriously.... Perhaps farmers who use BOM info are getting a concession. Completely stupid stuff.

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

It already does ****stick. Read the ATO figures.

So basically, the concessions you identify are:

1. Fuel Credits - accessible to most Australian business'
2. Depreciation over effective life of assets.
3. They pollute and don't pay - like everyone else
4. They can claim R&D costs - like everyone else
5. They use infrastructure, like everyone else. Can I ask how much Coles & Woolies pay for roads, ports, electricity networks etc??

Also, can I ask how many companies spend $5 billion to build their own rail and extend their own port facilities? (FMC).

You fanbois have nothing... At all ....

 

[medusala]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

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

Bazzas post was illogical. I explained why.

You seem to be unable to address any specifics re policies or give any reason why you are cheerleading.

Another poor man's Just Maybe. No ability whatsoever to address the issues.

At least Bazza (in his own special way) tried.

 

[King Elvis]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Eagle just ****ing owned you.

 

[Grin]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Eagle just ****ing owned you.

No.

The G B Bs post clearly showed the concessions available to miners that are not available to other industries.

Eagle just assumed that those dense enough to desperately want to give away their own children's inheritance didn't read The G. B. Bs. post.

Looks like Eagles assessment of the dimness of Liberal party fanboys was proven 100% correct in your case King Elvis.

Perhaps you Loopy Liberals have embarrassed yourselves enough for one night.

But please feel free to continue. It's very amusing

 

[morgoth]

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.

They are Govt receipts, same thing. When a mining company is making a decision whether to invest billions, whether tax or royalty it is a negative cash flow item regardless of what you call. If these charges mean the hurdle rate of return is not acheived it will not go ahead.

You do realise Swan started off talking about the royalites, then he switched to company tax, he never combines the two and we found out why on four corners when he admitted that some miners could be paying 58% tax.

If this tax goes through in its current form we will be offering incentives in 10 years time to get the miners to invest again.

 

[morgoth]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

No.

The G B Bs post clearly showed the concessions available to miners that are not available to other industries.

Eagle just assumed that those dense enough to desperately want to give away their own children's inheritance didn't read The G. B. Bs. post.

Looks like Eagles assessment of the dimness of Liberal party fanboys was proven 100% correct in your case King Elvis.

Perhaps you Loopy Liberals have embarrassed yourselves enough for one night.

But please feel free to continue. It's very amusing

You were destroyed. Once again links to supporting documentation, wheras you guys just post with no links, and just expect us to treat it as the gospel truth.

 

[medusala]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

The G B Bs post clearly showed the concessions available to miners that are not available to other industries.

Utter nonsense. The fuel rebate is available to others. As for exploration, other industries dont carry it out so it is hardly relevant (and is not the same as depreciating something fully upfront)

But please feel free to continue. It's very amusing

Again you are incapable of making any point re policy or having anything to back up your view.

It would appear you believe in some sort of voodoo economics whereby higher taxes create better economic outcomes.

Then again you defend the Greens economic policies which advocate exactly that.

 

[Scotland]

Are Xstrata's Australian records publicly available?

They aren't ASX listed and don't list taxes and profits per country in their financial reports..

 

[morgoth]

Are Xstrata's Australian records publicly available?

They aren't ASX listed and don't list taxes and profits per country in their financial reports..

Knock yourself out:

http://www.xstrata.com/publications/financial

 

[Scotland]

Knock yourself out:

http://www.xstrata.com/publications/financial

Results are all tabled by business group, not by country.

 

[morgoth]

Results are all tabled by business group, not by country.

Note 9 to the 2009 accounts will give you some info (not all). They would have to file statutory returns in Australia for their Australian subsidiaries also.

 

[Dry Rot]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

Eagle just ****ing owned you.

Agreed.

Barry or Dawson or whoever he posts under is a troll but poor old Grin appears to be sincere in his twaddle.

 

[King Elvis]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

No.

The G B Bs post clearly showed the concessions available to miners that are not available to other industries.

Eagle just assumed that those dense enough to desperately want to give away their own children's inheritance didn't read The G. B. Bs. post.

Looks like Eagles assessment of the dimness of Liberal party fanboys was proven 100% correct in your case King Elvis.

Perhaps you Loopy Liberals have embarrassed yourselves enough for one night.

But please feel free to continue. It's very amusing

I like it how you replied to my post with nothing meaningful, yet fail to address or refute Eagle's post at all. I especially like it when Barry brought up the carbon cost. But please, explain to the dim amongst us how Eagle's is incorrect, we clearly need to be educated and enlightened.

Otherwise, you clearly got school buddy.

 

[Grin]

Throw all the tantrums you like.

Pretend to be as dense as you like (if it is a pretence).

It's time for the mining sector to pull it's weight.

If the the mining sector doesn't want to cooperate, and the political party they have purchased facilitates that lack of cooperation, then we can wait until the greens have balance of power.

The Greens haven't been bought by mining interests.

Time for you Loopies to stop being silly, and think about what is best for your children rather than mindlessly parroting the propaganda of foreign interests.

 

[pazza]

And the lie to every statement made by the MCA has been proven by BIS Shrapnel this morning.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...and-construction/story-e6frg8zx-1225877641639

 

[Chief]

Everyone needs to sit down and write out 100 times:

"Royalty payments are not a tax."

Then, once that has sunk in, have your arguments.

 

[King Elvis]

Throw all the tantrums you like.

Pretend to be as dense as you like (if it is a pretence).

It's time for the mining sector to pull it's weight.

If the the mining sector doesn't want to cooperate, and the political party they have purchased facilitates that lack of cooperation, then we can wait until the greens have balance of power.

The Greens haven't been bought by mining interests.

Time for you Loopies to stop being silly, and think about what is best for your children rather than mindlessly parroting the propaganda of foreign interests.

Just to clarify, amidst the hyperbole which part of this post actually refutes the points Eagle made?

And tantrum? Bit hypocritical of you, you're doing a George Bush, almost everybody on the anti-Tax side has said they're supportive of a profit based royalty scheme and increasing the 'tax' paid by the miners, where as you're trying to paint it as a completely black or white argument, you want the miners to pay more, we don't; when that's completely incorrect.

You're either with us, or you're against us (and we'll get personal and call you mean names)?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Everyone needs to sit down and write out 100 times:

"Royalty payments are not a tax."

Then, once that has sunk in, have your arguments.

Lawyer speak for "Yes they pay 33.6%, but only 16.2% of that is a tax. Ergo, they only pay 16.2%, not 33.6%."

Eagle87 has shown just how hypocritical the labour fanbois are on the subject of taxation.

Just to clarify, amidst the hyperbole which part of this post actually refutes the points Eagle made?

And tantrum? Bit hypocritical of you, you're doing a George Bush, almost everybody on the anti-Tax side has said they're supportive of a profit based royalty scheme and increasing the 'tax' paid by the miners, where as you're trying to paint it as a completely black or white argument, you want the miners to pay more, we don't; when that's completely incorrect.

You're either with us, or you're against us (and we'll get personal and call you mean names)?

Well said. Based on that post, you are now part of the tobacco industry/religious nutters/flat Earthers/anti-children/planet killers demographic invented by grin.

 

[Scotland]

Everyone needs to sit down and write out 100 times:

"Royalty payments are not a tax."

Then, once that has sunk in, have your arguments.

Whether you call them a tax or a business expense they are a govt. revenue stream.

The whole reason royalties are being excluded from statements is to illegimately support the view that mining companies don't pay enough to the govt for the extraction of non-renewable resources.

If you sell something for $100 and it costs you $40 to produce it you pay $18 in tax at the corporate tax rate of 30%.

If you apply a 5% royalty on sales and classify it a deductible expense you pay $16.50 in corporate tax plus the $5 royalty payment for a total of $21.50 in payments to govt.

Either or, you still pay 30% on all profits, but with royalties in place a greater share of revenue ends up with the govt.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Ok so the Lib bumboys want to ignore the significant fuel tax credits of nearly $2bill a year to the mining industry. Yes yes other industries can claim but nowhere near the extent that mining does. We're paying for Rinehart and Forrest's ****ing fuel. $2bill!!!!! No wonder I teared up at yesterday's protest. Those poor poor billionaires. Poor Gina , poor little Andrew. Boo ****ing hoo.

As for Eagletwat and Medusala 101 stating no worse than others on pollution...ha... their record on cleaning up is a joke. Look at the uranium mines in NT. Ask the local aboriginal poulations there about the "clean up"
You (in the words of Eagle) "****sticks" are kidding yourselves.


Some other support/tax breaks for out little miners (thanks to The Age's Peter Martin)

Exploration

While exploration and prospecting costs are capitalised for accounting purposes there is a tax concession giving an outright deduction is the year incurred other than for depreciating assets.

Deduction for pooled project expenditure

Certain mining project expenditure and related transport expenditure may be deducted over the expected life of the project with a concessional 150% or 200% rate of accelerated depreciation.

Deductions for site rehabilitation
An outright deduction is available for current and capital expenditure on rehabilitation of sites (Australian and foreign) that have been used by the taxpayer for mining, quarrying and petroleum operations or ancillary operations.

Deduction for Petroleum Resource Rent Tax payments
PRRT is fully deductible for income tax purposes.

Black Hole Expenditure

Examples of mining specific expenditure, not otherwise deductible, that are allowable under the blackhole expenditure rule include the formation of a company to undertake exploration.

Research and Development (R&D)
Existing R&D concessions allowing 125% deductibility (occasionally 175%) of relevant expenses are widely enjoyed by the mining industry. There is new law before Parliament to give more generous concessions (45% and 40% tax offsets) but restricting these credits to core activities or supporting activities with a dominant purpose of experimentation.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)
There are compulsory roll-over provisions for the mining industry giving CGT concessions when prospecting and mining interests change hands
150% deduction for designated frontier expenditure under PRRT
Under the PRRT regime there is a 150% deduction for exploration expenditure in designated frontier areas.

capital allowance concessions

• Some assets used by mining companies benefit from accelerated depreciation arrangements as a result of a statutory cap on their effective life.


– Offshore platforms used for oil and gas extraction (20 years, compared to the Commissioner of Taxation's determination of 30 years).

– Oil and gas production assets, other than an offshore platform or for electricity generation (15 years, compared to the Commissioner's determination of 30 years for many assets).

– Assets used to manufacture condensate, crude oil, domestic gas, liquid natural gas or liquid petroleum gas, but not if the manufacture occurs in an oil refinery (15 years, compared to the Commissioner's determination of 30 years for many assets).

The concessional treatments for uniform capital allowance (depreciation) in the mining and petroleum industry are listed below.

Capped life of certain depreciating assets used in specified industries
Item Kind of depreciating asset Industry in which the asset is used Period

1 Gas transmission asset Gas supply 20 years

2 Gas distribution asset Gas supply 20 years

3 Oil production asset (other than an electricity generation asset or an offshore platform) Oil and gas extraction 15 years

4 Gas production asset (other than an electricity generation asset or an offshore platform) Oil and gas extraction 15 years

5 Offshore platform Oil and gas extraction 20 years

 

[King Elvis]

Ok so the Lib bumboys want to ignore the significant fuel tax credits of nearly $2bill a year to the mining industry. Yes yes other industries can claim but nowhere near the extent that mining does.

Do these other industries use as much fuel as the miners?

All of those concessions are in place because of the positive impact mining has upon our economy.

Barry;

• Some assets used by mining companies benefit from accelerated depreciation arrangements as a result of a statutory cap on their effective life.

Clarify that as well please.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Do these other industries use as much fuel as the miners?

Well obviously not Priscilla.
But so what. It's like introducing a Tree tax rebate i.e you get a rebate for chopping down a tree and it's available to every industry, but obviously it's only going to favour one or two.

Do other industries get as big a break undergoing their key activites? Doubt it.

 

[medusala]

Ok so the Lib bumboys want to ignore the significant fuel tax credits of nearly $2bill a year to the mining industry.

You dont think freight companies get tax credits? Farmers are also big users of fuel. Hopeless argument.

As is the global warming nonsense

As for special treatment, you really are digging yourself a hole. Accelerated depreciation exists elsewhere and there are other things enjoyed by farmers and minufacturers of a similar bent. Then there is the r&d tax dodge, other tax investment dodges like trees, films etc.

It is highly amusing for the fanbois to attack Australias most important industry.

How odd they keep mum re TCF and Auto, the ******ed red headed step sons of Australian industry which survive on govt handouts and tariffs. "Green" car anyone?

Hypocrisy 101.

 

[Eagle87]

Ok so the Lib bumboys want to ignore the significant fuel tax credits of nearly $2bill a year to the mining industry. Yes yes other industries can claim but nowhere near the extent that mining does. We're paying for Rinehart and Forrest's ****ing fuel. $2bill!!!!! No wonder I teared up at yesterday's protest. Those poor poor billionaires. Poor Gina , poor little Andrew. Boo ****ing hoo.

You are kidding surely? How are "we" paying for Rinehart & Forrests fuel? I mean you have no idea what one gets the fuel credit for do you?

Idiocy.

Again, per the ATO (my previous post), almost all business in all sectors qualify. Do you also realize that mining claims for fuel rebates are much more restricted than, say, transport?? It's all on the ATO website if actual knowledge is of any interest...

Some other support/tax breaks for out little miners (thanks to The Age's Peter Martin)

Peter Martin??? Bwahahaha - former treasury official and further left than, well, the left ... Carry on ...

Exploration

While exploration and prospecting costs are capitalised for accounting purposes there is a tax concession giving an outright deduction is the year incurred other than for depreciating assets.

]

Addressed previously

Deduction for pooled project expenditure

Certain mining project expenditure and related transport expenditure may be deducted over the expected life of the project with a concessional 150% or 200% rate of accelerated depreciation.

Pooled project expenditure is available to all business. It's also available at accelerated rates. It's not a 200% deduction, it's simply accelerated. Lots of business' can access accelerated rates and all business can access pooled project expenses.

How is that a mining concession?

Deductions for site rehabilitation
An outright deduction is available for current and capital expenditure on rehabilitation of sites (Australian and foreign) that have been used by the taxpayer for mining, quarrying and petroleum operations or ancillary operations.

WTF?

So a mining site finishes it's useful life and the miner rehabilitates the site and claims those expenses as a deduction. Wow. News at 11. Business claims deduction for business related cost.

Would you propose the specifically deny those expenses, so that mining companies don't rehabilitate sites?

Isn't that at odds with your "pollution" comments?

Are you always this dense?

Deduction for Petroleum Resource Rent Tax payments
PRRT is fully deductible for income tax purposes.

Wow, a business expense is deductible. I mean so are Royalties, payroll tax. FBT, PAYG withholding etc etc - same as for all other businesses.

Black Hole Expenditure

Examples of mining specific expenditure, not otherwise deductible, that are allowable under the blackhole expenditure rule include the formation of a company to undertake exploration.

Actually, section 40-880 allows the formation costs of ANY company to be written off over 5 years .... ANY company ... Or Trust ....

Is it you that's clueless or that flog Peter Martin?

Research and Development (R&D)

Existing R&D concessions allowing 125% deductibility (occasionally 175%) of relevant expenses are widely enjoyed by the mining industry. There is new law before Parliament to give more generous concessions (45% and 40% tax offsets) but restricting these credits to core activities or supporting activities with a dominant purpose of experimentation.

This is flogness at it's extreme. Again, ALL companies carrying on R&D qualify for these concessions.

How is that a "mining concession"

Capital allowance concessions

• Some assets used by mining companies benefit from accelerated depreciation arrangements as a result of a statutory cap on their effective life.


– Offshore platforms used for oil and gas extraction (20 years, compared to the Commissioner of Taxation's determination of 30 years).

– Oil and gas production assets, other than an offshore platform or for electricity generation (15 years, compared to the Commissioner's determination of 30 years for many assets).

– Assets used to manufacture condensate, crude oil, domestic gas, liquid natural gas or liquid petroleum gas, but not if the manufacture occurs in an oil refinery (15 years, compared to the Commissioner's determination of 30 years for many assets).

The concessional treatments for uniform capital allowance (depreciation) in the mining and petroleum industry are listed below.

Capped life of certain depreciating assets used in specified industries
Item Kind of depreciating asset Industry in which the asset is used Period

1 Gas transmission asset Gas supply 20 years

2 Gas distribution asset Gas supply 20 years

3 Oil production asset (other than an electricity generation asset or an offshore platform) Oil and gas extraction 15 years

4 Gas production asset (other than an electricity generation asset or an offshore platform) Oil and gas extraction 15 years

5 Offshore platform Oil and gas extraction 20 years

You don't understand anything about tax, at all, do you?

You want someone to provide you the 300 pages of Commissioner ESTIMATES of effective lives that are NOT BINDING ON ANYONE? You can always self-assess the rate based on individual circumstances. The legislation actual sets specific maximum effective lives for a variety of assets in a variety of industries. Not just mining.

The companies are not bound by these rates and are free to use different effective lives as allowed under the self-assessment provisions. Many do, some faster and some slower.

This is available to ALL non SBE entities.

Not a concession at all.

Again, please try harder...

So Peter Martin (Lefty ex-Treasury flog) and Barry have successfully listed a heap of "concessions" and pseudo "concessions" widely available to all business and argued this is a reason that mining should be r*ped by KRudd? Quality logic!

 

[kimp]

Just to clarify, amidst the hyperbole which part of this post actually refutes the points Eagle made?

And tantrum? Bit hypocritical of you, you're doing a George Bush, almost everybody on the anti-Tax side has said they're supportive of a profit based royalty scheme and increasing the 'tax' paid by the miners, where as you're trying to paint it as a completely black or white argument, you want the miners to pay more, we don't; when that's completely incorrect.

You're either with us, or you're against us (and we'll get personal and call you mean names)?

First part correct. Second part very very wrong. The reason they want a profit-based tax is that they only want to pay on profitable projects and not as an expense regardless of revenue and cost of extraction.

So basically they want their cake and to eat it too.