ABC seem determined with the story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/why-many-big-companies-dont-pay-corporate-tax/9443840
Wasn't Qantas losing money for a period of years. Are they using examples where companies had losses in those years?ABC seem determined with the story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/why-many-big-companies-dont-pay-corporate-tax/9443840
I recall Emma Alberici running with the headline, many big Aussie companies are not paying tax! Which at very least required the qualification, that many are carrying previous years capital losseshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2...alysis-after-complaints-from-malcolm-turnbull
...The ABC said the Alberici analysis piece had been removed because it did not meet editorial standards and further information and context had been added to the news story.
“On 14 February 2018 ABC News Online published two stories on corporate tax rates – a news story examining why some Australian companies do not pay corporate tax and an analysis of proposed changes to company tax rates,” a spokeswoman said.
“The analysis piece did not accord with our editorial standards for analysis content, and has been removed for further review.” The ABC has denied there was any pressure from the government ...
Which at very least required the qualification, that many are carrying previous years capital losses
That was made quite clear in the article had you read it.
I saw it live on ABC TV. I don't recall any such qualification from Emma, which is the point here.
18 Feb 2018 - Joyce doesn't deserve to be deputy PM
By: John Hewson: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-deserve-to-be-deputy-pm-20180217-p4z0p8.html
Barnaby has only ever been for Barnaby – in life and in politics.
He has allowed his Nationals team basically to run amok over the past couple of years, ignoring government policy and responsibilities to cabinet solidarity, and to government unity, speaking freely on many issues, and on many occasions, notionally “in the interests of the bush”... Barnaby simply cannot remain as Deputy Prime Minister, irrespective of the Coalition agreement. He doesn’t deserve it on either merit or performance. If this requires the renegotiation of that Coalition agreement,
so be it ...
There should be a discussion on the appropriateness of indefinite carrying forwards of losses. Companies can borrow or issue shares to cover losses, the taxpayers don't have to contribute.
Nope. Borrowing or issuing shares do not cover losses.
Business is a risk, and shareholders know it.
Your model would mean the death knell of entrepreneurship. Nobody would start a business if losses cannot be carried forward (at least for a considerable number of years).
Personally I think there’s too much focus on the short term already.I'm just saying that it should not be indefinite. Five years would be reasonable. If a company can't get into profit in 5 years then it's probably not viable anyway.
If anyone breaks even on the renewable energy infrastructure we need is less than a decade then they’ve either taken massive shortcuts or they’ve received a handout. Same with a lot of infrastructure - in some cases you’d be looking at a decade just to see any revenue and obviously a lot longer than that to be in profit.
I'm just saying that it should not be indefinite. Five years would be reasonable. If a company can't get into profit in 5 years then it's probably not viable anyway.
Newscorp would be fairly nasty on their inclusion:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/fi...ias-largest-companies-corporate-tax-10-years/
Your model would mean the death knell of entrepreneurship. Nobody would start a business if losses cannot be carried forward (at least for a considerable number of years). A typical mining operation with limited life may incur losses for the first 10 - 15 years during the exploration and start up phase and only turn a profit in the last few years. If for example, the overall profitability of the mine is $1b over the life of the mine, a loss of $1.4b over the early years followed by a profit of $2.4b once production is in full swing, at a 30% tax rate and allowing losses to be brought forward, would mean 300m in tax and 700m in after tax profits over the life of the mine. Not allowing carried forward losses would mean tax of 720m and profit after tax of 280m over the life of the mine. An effective tax rate of 72% for the project.
You seem to hold the belief that the government is entitled to tax on revenue, not just profit. That is simply unjust. A tax year is just a construct making it easy for accounting and taxation purposes. A business is a long term undertaking and the accounting year is just a means of determining profits and tax at regular intervals.
Your proposal would create huge anomalies in taxation that are purely related to timing rather than fairness. One starts up a business and incurs huge start up costs in June say (training etc.), so they have a loss for that tax year. The following tax year the business is profitable. But if losses cannot be carried forward, then starting up the business in June would have a hugely different tax consequence to starting it in July, when the start up costs can be applied against that years revenue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?