Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Turnbull Government

Jump to new
Smurf1976 said:
Personally I think there’s too much focus on the short term already.

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.

That there’s so much focus on the short term is already a big problem from what I see. There aren’t many companies willing to take a 30 year view knowing that all the profit comes toward the end. If they couldn’t carry the loss forward then even fewer would be interested.
Click to expand...

Read some old-school economist saying that infrastructure aren't supposed to be profitable. When a country's infrastructure become profitable, the entire economy suffers.

That is, infrastructure like roads, rail, the internet, communication etc. etc. These are "the commons"... the cheaper they are, the more competitive the country's business and enterprises... the cheaper the goods and services that can be supplied to corporations, businesses and your average citizens.

Since infrastructures tend to be either monopolies or duopolies in nature, hedge funds and other entrepreneurs love it. Problem is... they got a good thing that most everyone need, so they can charge practically whatever they like, increasing it each and every year.

Since not all roads and bridges are privatised, businesses and your average people wouldn't want to pay for expensive tolls, they then congest the "free" public ones - putting more pressure on gov't to fix and repair; more congestion etc., Then the private ones aren't getting much user so they have to jack up their prices.

Read somewhere that certain private operators would have clauses in their contract where the gov't cannot build or improve existing roads that "compete" with the toll roads.
 
bellenuit said:
The basic question is: why do you think it is right to penalise an enterprise that is doing the right thing for the country?
Click to expand...


Enterprises rarely do the right thing for the country. They operate for themselves. They will avoid as much tax as they can by shifting profits overseas or by other methods. Loopholes should be closed to avoid corporate tax avoidance.
 
SirRumpole said:
Enterprises rarely do the right thing for the country. They operate for themselves. They will avoid as much tax as they can by shifting profits overseas or by other methods. Loopholes should be closed to avoid corporate tax avoidance.
Click to expand...

The capacity of multinationals to shift profits overseas or create artificial financial arrangements to reduce the tax liability to zilch is destroying our tax base. The case brought by the ATO against Chevron is indicative of how Australias tax base is being destroyed and the weight of taxation is put on PAYE employees and local smaller businesses.

https://theconversation.com/australia-is-missing-out-on-tax-revenue-from-gas-projects-62899
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-21/chevron-faces-massive-tax-bill-after-ato-court-victory/8460874
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...fice-cracks-down-on-profit-shifting-loopholes
 
SirRumpole said:
Enterprises rarely do the right thing for the country. They operate for themselves. They will avoid as much tax as they can by shifting profits overseas or by other methods. Loopholes should be closed to avoid corporate tax avoidance.
Click to expand...

This and Basilio's post after it is going off topic. We are simply talking about why a company doing the right thing should be penalised.

The basic taxation principle in this regard is that a company should not be taxed for income purposes before it has recovered its costs. If it hasn't made a profit, it shouldn't be taxed. That is just basic fairness. Why you would want to deter entrepreneurship is beyond me.
 
Looks like Barnaby is pretty mixed up.

Don't use contraception like a good Catholic, but cheat on your wife like a bad Catholic.

I wonder if he's been to confession ?
;)
 
Be interesting to see if Wesfarmer's 87% drop in profit is used as reason for corporate tax cuts or if the govt sees it as a portend to a smaller tax purse over the next twelve months.
 
Tisme said:
Be interesting to see if Wesfarmer's 87% drop in profit is used as reason for corporate tax cuts or if the govt sees it as a portend to a smaller tax purse over the next twelve months.
Click to expand...

With my limited accountancy experience, this loss was the result mainly of a one off capital loss (Bunnings UK) written down against profits ?

Another tax dodge in my view.
 
Latest news on Barnaby Joyce. Will be interesting to see how it impacts of public perception of the Turnball government.

PM Regretfully Confirms Barnaby Joyce Has Taken Leave To Appear On I’m A Celebrity!

fucks-sake.jpg

ERROL PARKER | Editor-at-large | Contact

Just when it seemed things couldn’t get any worse for Malcolm Turnbull, they have.

This morning, the Prime Minister was forced to address rumours that his deputy Barnaby Joyce had taken leave not to hide from the spotlight of public outrage – but to appear on Network Ten’s cornerstone programme, I’m A Celebrity! Get Me Out Of Here!

Turnbull spoke to waiting journalists today at the Lower House entrance in Canberra around 10 am this morning.

“At this time, I can confirm that Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals, has taken leave from parliament to star on that ‘I’m A Celebrity’ show on Channel Ten,” he said.

“It’s disappointing that this has happened, I had no control over it. It’s a National Party initiative to repair his image and rebrand Mr Joyce as a knock-about bloke who’s been judged too harshly for his many, many trespasses,”

“That’s all I’m prepared to say at this time, thank you.”

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/ente...arnaby-joyce-taken-leave-appear-im-celebrity/
 
bellenuit said:
This and Basilio's post after it is going off topic. We are simply talking about why a company doing the right thing should be penalised.

The basic taxation principle in this regard is that a company should not be taxed for income purposes before it has recovered its costs. If it hasn't made a profit, it shouldn't be taxed. That is just basic fairness. Why you would want to deter entrepreneurship is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The principle of a company being able to offset income against costs is sound. The practice outlined in the Chevron case illustrates how creative accounting practices can subvert national tax policies by creating artifical losses.
In Chevrons case they "borrowed" hundreds of millions of dollars from a parent company at high interest rates for development purposes which produced the produced enourmous tax lossess.

Just a clever rort. In no way legitimate losses.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-...o-target-offshore-related-party-loans/8532196
 
SirRumpole said:
Alberici's revised article on corporate taxcuts.

Arguments on facts please, not alleged bias.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-22/more-to-jobs-and-growth-than-a-corporate-tax-cut/9471856
Click to expand...

Can't accelerate jobs and growth without increasing production and productivity.

Apart from a brief period in the Hawke/Keating years, Australian business has a track record of an unwillingness to tool up and create industry ... a cultural cringe that we can't compete, instead an obsession a year on year desire for safe profit; unlike the U$ofA and Asian visions of long term commitment to asset growth.

We sold off all the public utility value created by the economic revolution of the 80/90s because of an LNP fixating belief in the prudential balancing of the books and out of shear luck our mines offset the inevitable stagnation and empty pockets that would have occurred otherwise.

I can well remember when Whitlam went to China and set up economic seeds, Hawke and Keating touted Asia and Howard subsequently touted USA, but couldn't undo the Asian ties. Now we are off to the USA again!
 
The WA Nats division cancelled support for Barnaby. Then a harassment case involving a WA staffer was brought to light. Not that WA has any Nats members in Fed parliament.

I believe 'The Loyal Deputy' is, purely coincidentally, from WA.

But in the final analysis, Barnaby has nobody else to blame but himself.
 

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
1K
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
basilio
The Edge of Paradise
Replies
1
Views
288
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Garpal Gumnut
The Romance Scam thread
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
farmerge
farmerge
TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
1K
TiminOz
TiminOz
basilio
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
2K
basilio
basilio
Top