So is the COVID-19 drama over, or will this go on for some time?

[InsvestoBoy]

30% of the mining company’s profits

ha ha, good joke.

 

[jbocker]

1, Selling products to China because “They are buying all our stuff the bastards”

I think the 'bastards' are the ones stripping the shelves meant for the local supply. I think the VAST majority don't have an issue with selling to China.

2, foreign investment to expand Australian production because “that means they will take all our profits”

Good points on our shortages and we do need their money I understand foreign investment is needed but we have to take care at the level of ownership, where we no longer own the companies we develop. Then of course they will take all our profits and fill the boards and jobs too. We also need to be aware that we have let foreign companies in because we need them (sometimes). I think of Virgin how Aussie was that ever (I don't know I am hoping I picked a relevant example). Why Virgin and not QANTAS expansion which has to be a minimum 51% Aussie owned.

3, investing their own money “investing in businesses is risky”

I have had a crack at a lot of these and done some dough, but I feel happy to have had a crack, I am still hopeful that one will repay my overall investment. We just have to keep having a go and back ourselves.
There is some merit in what the loud are saying, its always been about finding middle ground, and to be honest I think we have punched above our weight from both sides to get there. It is no wonder We have such a great place to live, albeit we need to work hard and keep this The Lucky country

 

[IFocus]

In regards to the mill discussion remember that the skills / technology required for running that business are much higher than for mining, this adds value for other bushiness requiring those skills as people move around.

When the motor industry closed that was the end of 40,000 plus skilled workers that bled into the wider economy plus training paths for our young no longer available

The answer was to run 457 visas and condemn our youth to making coffees.

 

[Smurf1976]

In regards to the mill discussion remember that the skills / technology required for running that business are much higher than for mining, this adds value for other bushiness requiring those skills as people move around.

Yep.

Go to any such town or city and it's always the same story. Go to just about any other workplace and yep, they know full well that by whatever means they're making money from the mill. They sell them something or they're a contractor or their main customers are the mill employees or whatever. Even though their business is vastly different, ultimately their money's largely coming from the mill as is everyone else's.

 

[Value Collector]

ha ha, good joke.

What do you mean, are you saying mining companies don't pay company Tax?

BHP and RIO have been in the Top 10 company tax payers in Australia pretty consistently for years with only a few down years, and FMG is not far behind them, and the top 40 list has many other mining companies on there also.

FMG for example last year paid almost 3 times the amount in company tax than it did in royalties on the Iron ore it mined.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

What do you mean, are you saying mining companies don't pay company Tax?

Some pay more, some pay less, some pay none.

I don't believe, given tax avoidance strategies employed, Government subsidy to reduce taxable income, etc that the effective rate for mining companies as an aggregate sector is 30%. The Australia Institute estimates 14%.

Michael West is one of AUs few remaining independent journalists and every year for the last five years he digs into the tax transparency data released by the ATO, mining companies are at the top of the list.

BHP and RIO have been in the Top 10 company tax payers in Australia pretty consistently for years with only a few down years, and FMG is not far behind them, and the top 40 list has many other mining companies on there also.

Is this the same BHP that lost in court case to the ATO over (oh, I'm sorry, settled without admitting fault) over a decade of tax avoidance schemes using their Singapore marketing hub?

Or Rio that got hit with the same thing?

Not to mention the multinationals, especially Exxon and Chevron, who have not paid a dime in tax in five years and the ATO has won cases against to claw back tax from avoidance schemes, Shell who the ATO is still chasing for $750m and Glencore that the High Court crushed their attempt to hide all their tax avoidance using offshore law firms in the Panama Papers?

FMG for example last year paid almost 3 times the amount in company tax than it did in royalties on the Iron ore it mined.

FMG is a company founded in 2003 that in 2011 told the Senate that they had never paid corporate tax. Sure glad they are finally paying something now.

Don't even get me started on royalties. I think the approach our country has taken is a joke compared to Norway who has a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund and 78% tax rate on oil companies.

 

[qldfrog]

A common trick by mining company is to include royalties among the taxes paid in their PR;
Same as a restaurant pretending that all the produce, meat, food they use was taxes.
Royalties as they are are a true robbery of Australians by miners.
Mostly wasted, lost forever and destroyed resources for a quick buck; recovery is never the KPI, profit is and usually with a very short vision.

 

[Value Collector]

Some pay more, some pay less, some pay none.

I don't believe, given tax avoidance strategies employed, Government subsidy to reduce taxable income, etc that the effective rate for mining companies as an aggregate sector is 30%. The Australia Institute estimates 14%.

Michael West is one of AUs few remaining independent journalists and every year for the last five years he digs into the tax transparency data released by the ATO, mining companies are at the top of the list.



Is this the same BHP that lost in court case to the ATO over (oh, I'm sorry, settled without admitting fault) over a decade of tax avoidance schemes using their Singapore marketing hub?

Or Rio that got hit with the same thing?

Not to mention the multinationals, especially Exxon and Chevron, who have not paid a dime in tax in five years and the ATO has won cases against to claw back tax from avoidance schemes, Shell who the ATO is still chasing for $750m and Glencore that the High Court crushed their attempt to hide all their tax avoidance using offshore law firms in the Panama Papers?



FMG is a company founded in 2003 that in 2011 told the Senate that they had never paid corporate tax. Sure glad they are finally paying something now.

Don't even get me started on royalties. I think the approach our country has taken is a joke compared to Norway who has a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund and 78% tax rate on oil companies.

In regards to Fmg, ofcourse they aren’t going to pay tax during the construction and expansion phase of building their assets, expenditure is guaranteed To mean there is no Profits for a long while.

In regards to tax avoidance, well BHP and RIO are still the some of the largest payers of company tax, but ofcourse there will be squabbles around the edges.

If any company is found to be purposefully avoiding tax, I would have no issue with revoking mining leases, a company avoiding tax isn’t an argument against the system, it’s an arguement for better enforcement of the law.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

In regards to Fmg, ofcourse they aren’t going to pay tax during the construction and expansion phase of building their assets, expenditure is guaranteed To mean there is no Profits for a long while.

Very nice for FMG to be able to carry forward losses indefinitely while they ship the ore to China where there is a hard 5 year limit on carrying forward losses.

If any company is found to be purposefully avoiding tax, I would have no issue with revoking mining leases, a company avoiding tax isn’t an argument against the system, it’s an arguement for better enforcement of the law.

Who's arguing against the system? I was laughing when you said miners pay 30% and you took that as me saying they pay no tax?

 

[Value Collector]

Very nice for FMG to be able to carry forward losses indefinitely while they ship the ore to China where there is a hard 5 year limit on carrying forward losses.

I take it you haven't followed FMG closely over the years, you do understand that they were constructing huge amounts of infrastructure that involved 4 large mines, a massive rail network, port and all the associated infrastructure, and their early production was very high cost.

How can you expect them to be generating enough profit to pay tax from the trickle of Iron that only ramped up towards the very end of you stated time frame, when they are spending huge amounts in expansion efforts that offset all the profits, They were taking on more debt every year over that period

Who's arguing against the system? I was laughing when you said miners pay 30% and you took that as me saying they pay no tax?

Ok, you must have missed the original intent of my comment.

I wasn't making a factual statement that all mining companies pay 30% of their profits in tax.

I was describing the basic outline of how the system model should work, and the potential revenues made in mining vs operating steel mills.

If you want to enter the conversation half way through and try to distract from my original point by suggesting that currently some miners might get away with paying less than 30% tax, That isn't an argument against the point I was making, and of course the steel mills I was comparing the mining model to would be just as capable of tax avoidance.

My basic premise was that currently Iron ore mining is capable of generating significantly more revenues than operating steel mills.

 

[Smurf1976]

My basic premise was that currently Iron ore mining is capable of generating significantly more revenues than operating steel mills.

It may generate more tax revenue to government under current policy arrangements but assuming an equal volume of ore in either case, there's no way that processing it on shore in Australia can result in less revenue to the community as a whole if the plant is located anywhere in Australia and employs Australians and so on.

Taking ore mined in the NT and Queensland and shipping it to Tasmania for processing, as presently occurs on a significant scale, in no way reduces the value of the ore but the processing is pumping rather a lot of money through the Tasmanian economy in addition to that which arises to the NT and Qld from the mining.

Likewise Singapore importing crude oil and exporting refined products isn't losing from the deal that's for sure.

Whether or not it generates tax revenue to government, turning $10 into $100 certainly adds revenue to the community overall. Every worker, contractor, supplier etc involved is getting a portion of that added value.

 

[sptrawler]

From memory Royalties on iron ore is still 25cents per ton, as it was in the 1960s, Brendon Grylls an ex mp from WA was trying to get it raised to $5 per ton in 2017, but the mining lobby spent a couple of million on advertising.
He lost his seat.
Priceless.
So VC $20/ton, sell for $80/ ton, minus royalties 25cents and whatever tax we can get them to pay.lol
Great gig if you can get it.
Building a better Australia?

 

[sptrawler]

Hopefully the royalties will be investigated in Morrison's clean slate review, because in reality the only thing of value we are selling is resources, so that is what is paying for our lifestyle.
Unless we get fair return for it, we can't build a sustainable economy, we are just kicking the can down the road untill the resources run out.
Our advantage is we have the cheapest recovery rates in the world for resources, if we don't tax that advantage and use the money to invest in value adding, we do become a third world nation, not a matter of if but when.
Simple really, sooner or later the low cost resources are gone, then we become a high cost recovery resource.
Don't forget China has iron ore, the only problem is it is 1km underground, eventually ours will be then they wont be mining ours.

 

[sptrawler]

Just in case someone wants to poo pah what I've said, found a link, here you go.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national...hting-brendon-grylls-tax-20170208-gu8iz7.html

Clever Australia, I think not, the political parties thrash around in the $hit pit trying to find another pleb to suck money out of.
The problem is eventually they run out of pleb donors, Brendon Grylls was on the money.

 

[Value Collector]

It may generate more tax revenue to government under current policy arrangements but assuming an equal volume of ore in either case, there's no way that processing it on shore in Australia can result in less revenue to the community as a whole if the plant is located anywhere in Australia and employs Australians and so on.

Taking ore mined in the NT and Queensland and shipping it to Tasmania for processing, as presently occurs on a significant scale, in no way reduces the value of the ore but the processing is pumping rather a lot of money through the Tasmanian economy in addition to that which arises to the NT and Qld from the mining.

Likewise Singapore importing crude oil and exporting refined products isn't losing from the deal that's for sure.

Whether or not it generates tax revenue to government, turning $10 into $100 certainly adds revenue to the community overall. Every worker, contractor, supplier etc involved is getting a portion of that added value.

Yes, of course producing steel here or any other processing would generate more revenue, but that is not the point.

The point is given the amount of capital we would need to invest to increase steel or other output, would the extra revenue they produce justify the capital outlay, or would that capital be better used in other ways, because capital is not unlimited.

At the moment shareholders capital deployed in mining can pretty easily produce 15%+ returns, while also producing significant Tax revenues for the government.

I don't think even the best most efficient steel mills in china beat a 15% return.

Alternative uses for or limited capital are likely to have all the benefits of steel mill and oil processing, but can deliver higher returns, if these other industries did offer decent returns the market would naturally push capital in that direction.

 

[Value Collector]

From memory Royalties on iron ore is still 25cents per ton, as it was in the 1960s, Brendon Grylls an ex mp from WA was trying to get it raised to $5 per ton in 2017, but the mining lobby spent a couple of million on advertising.
He lost his seat.
Priceless.
So VC $20/ton, sell for $80/ ton, minus royalties 25cents and whatever tax we can get them to pay.lol
Great gig if you can get it.
Building a better Australia?

You have been mislead by poor journalism.

Iron ore royalty is 7.5% in WA + the $0.25 rent so on $80 it would be $6.25 not $0.25.

Think about it, why else would the WA government be concerned about the Iron price dropping if the royalty was fixed, the only reason so mollies wanted to raise the rent was because the Iron ore price had dropped, and so their revenue had dropped, I would be in favour of increasing the fixed portion as long as they reduced the % component too.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10...ed-why-are-rio-tinto-and-bhp-targeted/7908544

Over $5 Billion in Iron ore royalties were paid last year, if they were only paying 25 cents a tonne that would be 20 Billion Tonnes, which is more ore than has been mined in the last 30 Years.

 

[Junior]

It may generate more tax revenue to government under current policy arrangements but assuming an equal volume of ore in either case, there's no way that processing it on shore in Australia can result in less revenue to the community as a whole if the plant is located anywhere in Australia and employs Australians and so on.

Taking ore mined in the NT and Queensland and shipping it to Tasmania for processing, as presently occurs on a significant scale, in no way reduces the value of the ore but the processing is pumping rather a lot of money through the Tasmanian economy in addition to that which arises to the NT and Qld from the mining.

Likewise Singapore importing crude oil and exporting refined products isn't losing from the deal that's for sure.

Whether or not it generates tax revenue to government, turning $10 into $100 certainly adds revenue to the community overall. Every worker, contractor, supplier etc involved is getting a portion of that added value.

...and every worker pays income tax, contractors pay company tax, GST etc. etc. that revenue circulates here rather than giving away a big chunk of it offshore.

 

[Value Collector]

...and every worker pays income tax, contractors pay company tax, GST etc. etc. that revenue circulates here rather than giving away a big chunk of it offshore.

Just as it would in any other industry that capital could flow to, rather than being tied up in one that produced little return on capital.

Once again my argument is not that we would increase national income (from all the sources mentioned) if we made huge capital investments in steel mills or oil refineries, my argument is that the huge amounts of capital are better used else where in other parts of the economic web of industry.

but hey, no one is stopping anyone rounding up investors and building these types of projects.

 

[qldfrog]

Week after week we are told about nearly there cure or vaccine
Yesterday, Gilead drug was in the new
I copied an extract of their trial result analysis
A separate trial looked at the length of treatment
In the study, most patients who received the five-day regimen were considered "improved" after 10 days. Those who received a 10-day course of therapy showed improvement after 11 days.

After two weeks, more than half the patients in both groups had been discharged from the hospital, and 64.5 per cent in the five-day treatment group and 53.8 per cent in the 10-day treatment group had recovered.
++++++++
Yes the earlier you stop the treatment, the better the patients...
Which improves at best 30pc of treatment
I think the only real result we have is that patients are not killed by the drugs....as long as they do not use it for too long
That drug is what the US is banking on to sort the problem...well maybe that thread is a bit too early still.
We might stay stranded on our island a bit longer than many plan.

And before getting a red rob arguing at length my conclusions, what the trial shows is ..not much and statistically inconclusive.
The chinese initial trials did not find any advantage either, but the manufacturer is obviously not going to stop there.

 

[Knobby22]

It doesn't work. It was known it didn't work a month ago. Big Pharma can make lot of money if it can get approval. It annoys me resources are being spent on this when there are other more promising alternatives.