Exactly. I'm amazed that more focus has not been attached to this utter nonsense (Tom Albanese described as 'bizarre') by the Opposition, and the Minerals Council, for that matter.It really is nuts that the Government is willing to take a 40% stake in risky mineral exploration, indexed to the government bond rate.
2. it will not be politically viable to write out big cheques to failed mining ventures. It will be a massive storm when, as the author alludes to, the administrators for a Pasminco come knocking on Treasuries door for a big tax refund due to poor zinc price forecasting; and
3. This is why financiers will not accept the 40% 'government bond' in their modelling - they do not trust the political will to open up the coffers for mining losses racked up.
Also imagine the impact on the budget when China has its correction and commodity prices crash or the gold 'bubble' pops? There could be a bill well into the billions which will have to be funded by tax payers!
So far, I rather doubt this has actually registered with the electorate at large.This will just not sell electorally IMO.
Agree, and I reckon the miners would probably accept that, as long as the deal stays which sees them reimbursed for the royalties paid to the States.My tip is that the RSPT will be watered down to become like the petroleum profits tax - thus a flat 40% rate will kick in after a project return of the bond rate + 500-600 basis points with a tax write-off allowed for royalties but no government refund for capital losses. This can then easily and fairly be transferred on existing assets, with an allowance made for written-off depreciation. The tax will then not apply to low margin operations like quarrying etc because the return on those projects will be below or on the 11% margin.
Given the paper alleging the 13 to 17 % tax rate was written by a student who this evening was alleged to still not have graduated, granted with supervision by his Professor of Taxation, I wouldn't have to think too hard to put my money on the veracity of the BHP Company statement.Mr Swann is saying that "multinationals such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto pay just 13 to 17 per cent tax". BHP and the opposition are stating that this is a misrepresentation. The following link points out that "BHP Billiton clearly stated that in the 2009 financial year it paid total taxes to Australian governments of A$6.3 billion, resulting in an effective tax rate of around 43 per cent.” Given the Corporations Act has a number of provisions relating to a company officer making false and misleading statements, then can we conclude that the BHP CFO is making an accurate statement.
So who is telling the truth and can the government reconcile the discrepancy?
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2...entation-of-level-of-australian-tax-paid.html
Kevin's SPT; snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
My 2c - lets see how it plays out. Without a doubt, though, some variant of the super profits tax will exist going forward.
Given the paper alleging the 13 to 17 % tax rate was written by a student who this evening was alleged to still not have graduated, granted with supervision by his Professor of Taxation, I wouldn't have to think too hard to put my money on the veracity of the BHP Company statement.
Andrew Robb has quoted one part of the student's paper where he says the student didn't know where to put the figures from New Zealand, so he just tacked them on to those for Australia!.
I have no idea whether that's true. No reason to think Mr Robb places any more value on truth than does Mr Swan.
Can you believe that Swan tried to use these shonky figures? The man has some gumption. ATO figures released today contradict this, saying the tax rate is more like 27%, with royalties taking this up to 40%.
Someone should re-instate the 'guilty party' slogan with this mob!
It has further emerged that the paper from which the government quoted the 13 to 17% tax paid by the miners was not even a final draft.Given the paper alleging the 13 to 17 % tax rate was written by a student who this evening was alleged to still not have graduated, granted with supervision by his Professor of Taxation, I wouldn't have to think too hard to put my money on the veracity of the BHP Company statement.
Andrew Robb has quoted one part of the student's paper where he says the student didn't know where to put the figures from New Zealand, so he just tacked them on to those for Australia!.
.
Ralph warns of mine loans hike
THE man who oversaw business tax reform for the Howard government, John Ralph, has attacked the proposed resource super-profits tax, saying it will cut industry investment at all levels and harm the national interest by jacking up sovereign borrowing costs.
In his first comments on the tax, mining industry legend and former Commonwealth Bank chairman John Ralph writes in The Australian today that his biggest concern is the elevated sovereign risk flowing from the tax's retrospective application.
"This will heighten -- significantly -- the sovereign risk assessment of Australia when it comes to investment in, and lending to, Australian entities," says Mr Ralph, who reviewed business taxes in 1999 for John Howard.
The current retracement was not caused by the RSPT but it sure as hell it has made the depth much deeper.
Don't forget ear wax eater ...... who's that guy with Kruddy .... he looks kinda important ?
The Aussie dollar is considered by the global investment community as a risky option in times of economic uncertainty due to the nation's leverage to the commodity prices and and concerns about the mining super profits tax. The US dollar is seen as a safe haven.
http://www.news.com.au/business/euro...-1225869409039
What fails me is the CEO's of these super taxable companies are shooting themselves in the foot by talking down their resilience to these obtuse suggestions by the Government.
The AUD started trending lower from last Nov and many of us were predicting a lower AUD and stronger USD, long before the super tax issue came out.
The reason is simply that a large proportion of international financial transactions are made in USD and the USD has always been the currency of choice when large liquidation of positions occur around the world as has happened lately.
Aus is a spec in the ocean in terms of financial transactions. My opinion is that the AUD ran too high as a result of our higher growth and interest rates after the GFC. This fall is simply a reflection of a rather hurried return of those funds to whence they came, or better yielding or safe position.
Precious little to do with any new tax proposal, in other words the other international events was going to cause the AUD to fall anyway.
Talking about shooting... It's the sort of hysterical nonsense like in a lot of your half cocked and completely inaccurate comments, that finds it's way into the media, that drives uncertainty and liquidation of assets like is occurring now.
PS:... and a lower AUD is better for Aus export profits.
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?