-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Now Xstrata exposed as liars.
- Thread starter Dippers Donuts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
More denials from the Lib bumboys.
From a Treasury paper industry ave tax rates.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1815/PDF/Disparities in average tax rates.pdf
"the industry receives generous deductions for the decline in value of depreciating assets, including the immediate expensing of exploration expenditure, certain infrastructure expenses, and site rehabilitation. The industry draws an above average advantage from such provisions through its capital intensity. These factors result in large deductions, allowing such firms to reduce their taxable income below their actual economic income.".............
"............In addition, the mining industry is further favoured by industry-specific measures, such as the ability to expense immediately some expenditure that would normally be considered to be of a capital nature."
From a Treasury paper industry ave tax rates.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1815/PDF/Disparities in average tax rates.pdf
"the industry receives generous deductions for the decline in value of depreciating assets, including the immediate expensing of exploration expenditure, certain infrastructure expenses, and site rehabilitation. The industry draws an above average advantage from such provisions through its capital intensity. These factors result in large deductions, allowing such firms to reduce their taxable income below their actual economic income.".............
"............In addition, the mining industry is further favoured by industry-specific measures, such as the ability to expense immediately some expenditure that would normally be considered to be of a capital nature."
Laughable really, isn't it, Eagle87 has absolutely destroyed him, so he posts that to support his argument... Problem is, it doesn't.
- Thread starter
- #55
Re: labour fanbois panicking
now tell me pom pom liberal boy, how many offsets, rebates, concessions does the mining industry avail itself of? Depreciation as you say is there, as are R+D offsets, exploration rebates, etc etc. How many of these rebates, concessions are there? 24, 25? You're a pencil pusher in the industry aren't you? Why don't you tell us.
Interesting to note that the majority of companies in the mining industry pay no tax at all!
Dispute that liberal fan boy or are you still bleeding for the billionaires who are doing it tough?
You stupid twit - when have you ever asked me anything. Perhaps you are confused which is easily understandable given your limited grasp of things.
now tell me pom pom liberal boy, how many offsets, rebates, concessions does the mining industry avail itself of? Depreciation as you say is there, as are R+D offsets, exploration rebates, etc etc. How many of these rebates, concessions are there? 24, 25? You're a pencil pusher in the industry aren't you? Why don't you tell us.
Interesting to note that the majority of companies in the mining industry pay no tax at all!
Dispute that liberal fan boy or are you still bleeding for the billionaires who are doing it tough?
- Banned
- #56
Re: labour fanbois panicking
You and Grin are officially in the GF for most clueless fanbois. Well done
Exploration rebates? Really?
The other 2 you came up with are available to any business. Mining companies with R&D claims are in the minority.
On the bolded bit. The ONLY companies in Australia that pay no tax are the ones that make no profit. So mining companies without profits must be in the majority per your figures. Of course, under KRudds new policy, those loss making miners will pay no tax either, but they will get a taxpayer handout equal to the tax rate x their royalty payments AND they will get 40% of their losses refunded by the taxpayer when they close the doors. Imagine the uproar from "working families" when BHP shuts down its next Ravensthorpe ($1.5 billion loss) and gets a $600 million cheque from the government. Perhaps we can close a hospital or 3 to pay for it ....
The new tax regime promises the biggest tax handouts in history, to unprofitable, non-tax paying mining projects all over the place ....
You did know that didnt you?
You stupid twit - when have you ever asked me anything. Perhaps you are confused which is easily understandable given your limited grasp of things.
now tell me pom pom liberal boy, how many offsets, rebates, concessions does the mining industry avail itself of? Depreciation as you say is there, as are R+D offsets, exploration rebates, etc etc. How many of these rebates, concessions are there? 24, 25? You're a pencil pusher in the industry aren't you? Why don't you tell us.
Interesting to note that the majority of companies in the mining industry pay no tax at all!
Dispute that liberal fan boy or are you still bleeding for the billionaires who are doing it tough?
You and Grin are officially in the GF for most clueless fanbois. Well done
Exploration rebates? Really?
The other 2 you came up with are available to any business. Mining companies with R&D claims are in the minority.
On the bolded bit. The ONLY companies in Australia that pay no tax are the ones that make no profit. So mining companies without profits must be in the majority per your figures. Of course, under KRudds new policy, those loss making miners will pay no tax either, but they will get a taxpayer handout equal to the tax rate x their royalty payments AND they will get 40% of their losses refunded by the taxpayer when they close the doors. Imagine the uproar from "working families" when BHP shuts down its next Ravensthorpe ($1.5 billion loss) and gets a $600 million cheque from the government. Perhaps we can close a hospital or 3 to pay for it ....
The new tax regime promises the biggest tax handouts in history, to unprofitable, non-tax paying mining projects all over the place ....
You did know that didnt you?
- Thread starter
- #57
Re: labour fanbois panicking
so therefore, the govts super profits resource tax is not an issue is it.
one minute you and your fellow fan girls are squealing about this massive tax on profits, now you are squealing about the govt funding losses.
which one is it sweetheart?
You and Grin are officially in the GF for most clueless fanbois. Well done
Exploration rebates? Really?
The other 2 you came up with are available to any business. Mining companies with R&D claims are in the minority.
On the bolded bit. The ONLY companies in Australia that pay no tax are the ones that make no profit. So mining companies without profits must be in the majority per your figures. Of course, under KRudds new policy, those loss making miners will pay no tax either, but they will get a taxpayer handout equal to the tax rate x their royalty payments AND they will get 40% of their losses refunded by the taxpayer when they close the doors. Imagine the uproar from "working families" when BHP shuts down its next Ravensthorpe ($1.5 billion loss) and gets a $600 million cheque from the government. Perhaps we can close a hospital or 3 to pay for it ....
The new tax regime promises the biggest tax handouts in history, to unprofitable, non-tax paying mining projects all over the place ....
You did know that didnt you?
so therefore, the govts super profits resource tax is not an issue is it.
one minute you and your fellow fan girls are squealing about this massive tax on profits, now you are squealing about the govt funding losses.
which one is it sweetheart?
- Banned
- #58
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Its both.
The government will be funding losses and it will be driving the new projects overseas. No-one will invest the large amounts necessary for completely new projects when the pay off for the massive risk is substantially reduced. And the Treasury idea that the covering of a 40% loss will offset that is flawed as no-one goes into a mining project expecting to make a loss. You still have to fund 100% of the project and losing 60% of that is not acceptable ....
Its a completely shit policy that reduces the incentive to invest in new projects and increases the risk of large govt payouts on anything currently in train or that does get up ...
Just a horrible horrible policy all round.
I was just unsure if you understood that the new tax was introducing mining "concessions" of a potential magnitude far in excess of anything that has existed before. So it seems odd to sell it by saying that miners get big concessions.
If I asked you to explain (not just list) the 6 main features of the RSPT, could you?
I mean after 2 weeks of emergency education and information from the government to explain the facts, you could, couldnt you?
so therefore, the govts super profits resource tax is not an issue is it.
one minute you and your fellow fan girls are squealing about this massive tax on profits, now you are squealing about the govt funding losses.
which one is it sweetheart?
Its both.
The government will be funding losses and it will be driving the new projects overseas. No-one will invest the large amounts necessary for completely new projects when the pay off for the massive risk is substantially reduced. And the Treasury idea that the covering of a 40% loss will offset that is flawed as no-one goes into a mining project expecting to make a loss. You still have to fund 100% of the project and losing 60% of that is not acceptable ....
Its a completely shit policy that reduces the incentive to invest in new projects and increases the risk of large govt payouts on anything currently in train or that does get up ...
Just a horrible horrible policy all round.
I was just unsure if you understood that the new tax was introducing mining "concessions" of a potential magnitude far in excess of anything that has existed before. So it seems odd to sell it by saying that miners get big concessions.
If I asked you to explain (not just list) the 6 main features of the RSPT, could you?
I mean after 2 weeks of emergency education and information from the government to explain the facts, you could, couldnt you?
Can all those idiots who want to give up their children's inheritance to the children of billionaires just do it.
Perhaps Eagle 87 et al can sell their houses and other assets and donate it to those poor billionaires and stop insisting that the rest of us support give up our children's inheritance.
My feeling is that anytime one of those Billionaires (who don't want to pull their weight and who, despite having done very well out of this country, feel that we all owe them) tells lies about reduced investment, they should have their leases confiscated.
I bet if a rule like this came in they'd stop telling their porkies.
Perhaps Eagle 87 et al can sell their houses and other assets and donate it to those poor billionaires and stop insisting that the rest of us support give up our children's inheritance.
My feeling is that anytime one of those Billionaires (who don't want to pull their weight and who, despite having done very well out of this country, feel that we all owe them) tells lies about reduced investment, they should have their leases confiscated.
I bet if a rule like this came in they'd stop telling their porkies.
Aren't you one of those willing to give the banks an inexhaustible commodity market to trade via an emissions trading scheme? This is a case of grin in a broken glass house scrambling for more stones to throw.
Why is it that GW denialists seem to want to bring up their pet obsession in threads that have nothing to do with it?
Do you not understand the reference to people in glass houses? Obviously not as you and grin have the same beliefs.
He mentioned giving up children's inheritances as a debating tactic and was reminded of his past ramblings. I am just exposing his modus operandi for the world to see and some, as yourself, seem to ignore.
- Thread starter
- #63
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Absolute rubbish - there is no evidence anywhere to suggest the RSPT will be a disincentive for investment in the industry.
Even those paragons of liberal groupspeak BIS disagree with you.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bis-predicts-slump-in-mining-and-construction/story-e6frg8zx-1225877641639
BIS Shrapnel and Treasury do agree in their assessments that the new resources tax, once finalised, will not weaken overall mining investment in Australia.
you need to update your talking points.
so in other words you dont have a clue.
Absolute rubbish - there is no evidence anywhere to suggest the RSPT will be a disincentive for investment in the industry.
Even those paragons of liberal groupspeak BIS disagree with you.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bis-predicts-slump-in-mining-and-construction/story-e6frg8zx-1225877641639
BIS Shrapnel and Treasury do agree in their assessments that the new resources tax, once finalised, will not weaken overall mining investment in Australia.
you need to update your talking points.
- Banned
- #64
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Bwahahahaha ....
Have you been hiding under a rock??
You do get that mining projects have long lead times? The ones driving income for the next several years are already locked in, it's the new projects beyond that, the as yet uncommitted expansions ... read Access Economics stuff (already referenced), read KPMG Econtech ....
You can delude yourself as much as you need but you remain a clueless union flog or ALP lackey ... No head in the real world ...
so in other words you dont have a clue.
Absolute rubbish - there is no evidence anywhere to suggest the RSPT will be a disincentive for investment in the industry.
Even those paragons of liberal groupspeak BIS disagree with you.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bis-predicts-slump-in-mining-and-construction/story-e6frg8zx-1225877641639
BIS Shrapnel and Treasury do agree in their assessments that the new resources tax, once finalised, will not weaken overall mining investment in Australia.
you need to update your talking points.
Bwahahahaha ....
Have you been hiding under a rock??
You do get that mining projects have long lead times? The ones driving income for the next several years are already locked in, it's the new projects beyond that, the as yet uncommitted expansions ... read Access Economics stuff (already referenced), read KPMG Econtech ....
You can delude yourself as much as you need but you remain a clueless union flog or ALP lackey ... No head in the real world ...
- Thread starter
- #65
Re: labour fanbois panicking
You keep your faux sympathy for those poor billionaires who are sqealing like stuck pigs.
As for the KPMG report (not econtech douche) you cant spot a lemon when you see one? FFS how old are you.
http://economics.com.au/?p=5695&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+com%2FJUlM+%28CoreEcon%29
It is crucial to see the basic sleight of hand involved here: because new projects are constrained to take 30 years (whether they fail quickly or not), the pay-back on losses implicit within the RSPT in their models is going to be almost nothing compared to the costs of equity, simply because one dollar spent in year 1 on equity needs 66 dollars of return after 30 years, whilst one dollar of RSPT off-sets (presuming a 4% long-term bond rate) is worth no more than 3.24 dollars in pay-backs after 30 years!
yep, youre full of shit.
You keep your faux sympathy for those poor billionaires who are sqealing like stuck pigs.
As for the KPMG report (not econtech douche) you cant spot a lemon when you see one? FFS how old are you.
http://economics.com.au/?p=5695&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+com%2FJUlM+%28CoreEcon%29
It is crucial to see the basic sleight of hand involved here: because new projects are constrained to take 30 years (whether they fail quickly or not), the pay-back on losses implicit within the RSPT in their models is going to be almost nothing compared to the costs of equity, simply because one dollar spent in year 1 on equity needs 66 dollars of return after 30 years, whilst one dollar of RSPT off-sets (presuming a 4% long-term bond rate) is worth no more than 3.24 dollars in pay-backs after 30 years!
It's so funny that you seem to think that repeating your half-baked nonsense is some sort of trump card for use in any argument.
- Banned
- #67
Re: labour fanbois panicking
It was indeed a KPMG report, that specifically addressed the weaknesses in the earlier KPMG Econtech report (starts at page 32). Interestingly Treasuries first assumption that KPMG Econtech had to use was that capital was available (in the sense that capital was infinitely available). The second report uses the notions of scarce capital and competition. Wow, wonder why Treasury chose to ignore scarcity of capital and competition (for investment)??
Your "killer blow" above is a from a left academic economist. Brilliant. I'm convinced.
Interestingly, the original Treasury commissioned KPMG Econtech report was prepared by Economists. The second report for the MCA was prepared by KPMG's Corporate Finance guys.
Now I understand that Treasury and the left like theoretical economic models but most of us here in the real world reckon an analysis by Corporate Finance guys is likely more relevant.
But I'll break this down one issue at a time. Assuming you might actually answer a question for once. 1. Why would the model assume infinite capital and no competition for that capital?
It was indeed a KPMG report, that specifically addressed the weaknesses in the earlier KPMG Econtech report (starts at page 32). Interestingly Treasuries first assumption that KPMG Econtech had to use was that capital was available (in the sense that capital was infinitely available). The second report uses the notions of scarce capital and competition. Wow, wonder why Treasury chose to ignore scarcity of capital and competition (for investment)??
Your "killer blow" above is a from a left academic economist. Brilliant. I'm convinced.
Interestingly, the original Treasury commissioned KPMG Econtech report was prepared by Economists. The second report for the MCA was prepared by KPMG's Corporate Finance guys.
Now I understand that Treasury and the left like theoretical economic models but most of us here in the real world reckon an analysis by Corporate Finance guys is likely more relevant.
But I'll break this down one issue at a time. Assuming you might actually answer a question for once. 1. Why would the model assume infinite capital and no competition for that capital?
It trumped your post without much effort. Then again, your thinking is at grin's level so there is no achievement in that.
Keys
Looking for a cloud to yell at
- Moderator
- #69
Re: labour fanbois panicking
So a major new tax won't have any disincentive for investment. You live in fairyland if you believe that.
For the sake of argument assume the company you work for comes to you and says the people who own the building you work in think you earn too much so they are going to take 40% of anything you earn over and above what they think is fair. But there's this other place down the road in a building that's not quite as good as where you work now, but they offer to pay you the same and you won't have to pay the extra 40%. In the past you didn't want to go there because conditions weren't as good but now you can earn more by shifting.
Where are you going to go?
So a major new tax won't have any disincentive for investment. You live in fairyland if you believe that.
For the sake of argument assume the company you work for comes to you and says the people who own the building you work in think you earn too much so they are going to take 40% of anything you earn over and above what they think is fair. But there's this other place down the road in a building that's not quite as good as where you work now, but they offer to pay you the same and you won't have to pay the extra 40%. In the past you didn't want to go there because conditions weren't as good but now you can earn more by shifting.
Where are you going to go?
- Dec 7, 2001
- 23,449
- 8,525
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Not to mt Isa obviously. Xstrata have that town to ransome, they say jump,, and the Mt Isa people say how high.......Its a joke.
Not to mt Isa obviously. Xstrata have that town to ransome, they say jump,, and the Mt Isa people say how high.......Its a joke.
- Thread starter
- #71
Re: labour fanbois panicking
You don't know which report your quoting and when exposed you say oh sorry not sure about that.
And who commissioned your fan boy report>?
The MCA!!
****wit.
In other words, you're a ****ing idiot.
You don't know which report your quoting and when exposed you say oh sorry not sure about that.
And who commissioned your fan boy report>?
The MCA!!
****wit.
- Thread starter
- #72
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Douche where is your EVIDENCE the RSPT will be a negative drag on the economy.
Come on give me one report. Just one.
********.
Douche where is your EVIDENCE the RSPT will be a negative drag on the economy.
Come on give me one report. Just one.
********.
Actually I think you'll find that I supported the much more simple and sensible proposal put by the greens of a carbon tax.
But hey. Don't let me stop you from making stuff up and constructing straw man arguments in your desperation to give away the nation's wealth to Clive Palmer, Gina rhinhart (sic) and Twiggy Forrest and to foreign owned multinationals.
After all, if we don't donate our children's inheritance to these billionaires, the nation will go broke and the mining industry will collapse again as it did when work choices was undone. Just as oil and gas collapsed when a profits tax was introduced for them
.Clive Palmer must be laughing his head off that so many fools keep believing, time and again, his clearly dishonest claims aimed at stealing the inheritance of the children of his fellow Australians so that he can purchase more private jets.
Some people will believe any add they see on commercial TV
Keys
Looking for a cloud to yell at
- Moderator
- #74
Re: labour fanbois panicking
There isn't any evidence, there can't be as it hasn't happened yet. All that anyone can provide is an opinion on what might happen if the tax goes ahead - thats not EVIDENCE.
Given that Ken Henry seems to think that the rate could be raised from 40% to 90% without any effect on investment I won't be taking too much that he says seriously.
Explain to me how a new tax which will reduce profits won't have any impact on some projects that were marginal before the tax was contemplated.
There isn't any evidence, there can't be as it hasn't happened yet. All that anyone can provide is an opinion on what might happen if the tax goes ahead - thats not EVIDENCE.
Given that Ken Henry seems to think that the rate could be raised from 40% to 90% without any effect on investment I won't be taking too much that he says seriously.
Explain to me how a new tax which will reduce profits won't have any impact on some projects that were marginal before the tax was contemplated.
Re: labour fanbois panicking
Serious?
There have been at least a dozen articles linked to reports from indepedent financial firms, ex-Labor Mineral Ministers, Labor MPs, and past and present Public Servants.
Serious?
There have been at least a dozen articles linked to reports from indepedent financial firms, ex-Labor Mineral Ministers, Labor MPs, and past and present Public Servants.
Similar threads
