The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

"Advantages" don't just happen, at least in a country of our size. They need to be created and that includes keeping competition out until the home grown industries are strong enough to compete.

That's how all the world's big manufacturers started.

Funnily enough, we agree again.
Some of the Australian Government owned companies, that have been sold off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSL_Limited
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optus

Those were companies, sold by Hawke and Keating, and that is just a quick google search.
So it really isn't party specific, they are all ar$es, I just hate that some can't see that both sides do exactly the same.
Oh and let's not forget Qantas. lol

 

[fiftyeight]

But then these same people want to divert our small amount of capital away from these areas and into “pie in the sky” projects.

Is our pool of super that small?

 

[Value Collector]

No, there would still be local businesses. Employing local labour and paying taxes locally.

Most business entrepreneurs, despite what we're told, do not stop working or stop creating a business if the tax is at x or y%. You'd only care about that after you've made money and needed a fifth estate by the snowy mountain for completely legitimate tax-deductible business meetings.

Corporations are becoming too big they no longer just exploit the brown and black and yellow people "over there". They've become what some egghead call a virtual global Senate supplanting democracy like all upper houses democracies over.

Corporations becoming “big” is good.

When they were small enough to be controlled buy robber barons, the everyday people had no way of getting ahead.

Now, anyone and everyone can invest and become an owner of pretty much any of the big corporations for as little as $500.

It’s never been easier to gradually move from relying 100% on labour, to building a capital base.

 

[Value Collector]

Is our pool of super that small?

Obviously it is, other wise it is just totally misdirected.

What other reason is there for our infrastructure, farms, businesses etc being bought up by foreigners, and Aussie businesses relying on overseas bonds.

If there was enough local capital, then asset prices would be higher, and not attractive to outsiders.

 

[bellenuit]

One of the basics of business is that shareholders take a risk and have to bear some of the downsides as well as the upside. If a business is profitable currently they should be paying some tax, even if they can reduce it somewhat from previous losses. The government still needs revenue for services and infrastructure that business requires.

Profit is related to a period of time not a point in time. So being "profitable currently" although a term that is used often is meaningless. A company is not profitable until it has turned a profit. For taxation and accounting purposes we use a financial year as the basis of measuring what is owed in tax and what the status of the company is, but because a company may make a profit in a financial year does not mean it is profitable. A company becomes profitable when its income to date exceeds its expenses to date.

And yes, you are correct. When a company becomes profitable it should start paying tax on the profits. And that is what happens. The taxation department realises that even though a company may make a profit within a tax year, it is still not profitable if it has losses that can be applied against those profits. So that is why current year profits are not taxed if they are exceeded by prior year losses. That is just fairness in the tax system.

Your use of the word risk is inappropriate here. As a generalisation the fact that startups incur huge costs up front is a fact of business not a risk that can be overcome by good management. It is only when the company has paid down those costs that you can say it is profitable and that is what the ATO says too. Starting to tax them before they have paid down costs will at best stifle their growth or at worse drive them out of business. Where on earth do you think the tax take gets paid from?

 

[luutzu]

Corporations becoming “big” is good.

When they were small enough to be controlled buy robber barons, the everyday people had no way of getting ahead.

Now, anyone and everyone can invest and become an owner of pretty much any of the big corporations for as little as $500.

It’s never been easier to gradually move from relying 100% on labour, to building a capital base.

True. That's a good point.

But then if we keep letting fund managers managing our super and savings, its pretty much the same. But definitely potential there to democratise it.

'til then, owning a few thousands worth of stocks just doesn't get the CEO or the Chairman to answer your call as it used to.

 

[luutzu]

Funnily enough, we agree again.
Some of the Australian Government owned companies, that have been sold off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSL_Limited
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optus

Those were companies, sold by Hawke and Keating, and that is just a quick google search.
So it really isn't party specific, they are all ar$es, I just hate that some can't see that both sides do exactly the same.
Oh and let's not forget Qantas. lol

It's called sharing the wealth. Where you take what we all share and share all of it to a few who know how stock ownership works.

I read in its Annual Report that CSL have a contract with the gov't to guarantee certain kind of drugs in case of a pandemic or outbreaks.

For that guarantee, the taxpayers get to fork out an annual fee about $50M [?] to CSL to make sure they don't sell all of it to the Chinese or something.

 

[sptrawler]

Obviously it is, other wise it is just totally misdirected.

What other reason is there for our infrastructure, farms, businesses etc being bought up by foreigners, and Aussie businesses relying on overseas bonds.

If there was enough local capital, then asset prices would be higher, and not attractive to outsiders.

That isn't exactly accurate, there is plenty of O/S super funds buying up our infrastructure at a reasonable price, it is just Aussie super funds want instant hit high numbers.
They get their management bonuses, based on yearly performance, therefore they trade in high growth high spec not long term dividend.
I lost a lot of money on Government/Private motorways, River City(Brisbane) and East Link(Melbourne).
They made a lot of sense, but were just a Government ponzi scheme, that was sold to overseas pension funds for nothing. Australian Governments are a disgrace IMO.
There is no way I would want the Australian Government, spending taxpayers money on any industry, because as has been shown as soon as it is worth anything it is sold.
We are much better off just letting private invest their money, and force the industry to pay tax, and regulate as required.

 

[sptrawler]

It's called sharing the wealth. Where you take what we all share and share all of it to a few who know how stock ownership works.

I read in its Annual Report that CSL have a contract with the gov't to guarantee certain kind of drugs in case of a pandemic or outbreaks.

For that guarantee, the taxpayers get to fork out an annual fee about $50M [?] to CSL to make sure they don't sell all of it to the Chinese or something.

Yes, they were about $27 seven years ago.

 

[luutzu]

Corporations becoming “big” is good.

When they were small enough to be controlled buy robber barons, the everyday people had no way of getting ahead.

Now, anyone and everyone can invest and become an owner of pretty much any of the big corporations for as little as $500.

It’s never been easier to gradually move from relying 100% on labour, to building a capital base.

Another problem with too big too fail corporations, as John Raulston Saul pointed out, is that they standardised and commoditised everything.

There's two problem with that... one is the lost of cultural identity, local manufacturing, most local operations offering similar goods.

That as a corporation gets bigger, economy of scales and financial muscle mean that they have to expand, offering the same stuff all over the place.

That in turn mean the need to over extract whatever ingredient it is they need to produce it. To the extend that it supplant and destroy resources and produce more suitable to the local environment.

The example he gave was an apple from NZ having been shipped to Canada. Why? It costs less than the Canadian ones... but the gov't subsidies to NZ farmers, the fuel to transport, the chemicals and resources to store etc., Why all the trouble when there are perfectly good apples in Canada... or maple syrups.

The good thing is you get apples all year round I suppose.

 

[luutzu]

Yes, they were about $27 seven years ago.

Yea, I made "good" money on CSL. Bought around low $30s, sold for a cool $42 in a year

I think I made about $1,000 profit on that one.

The first million is the hardest... tell me about it.

 

[sptrawler]

The example he gave was an apple from NZ having been shipped to Canada. Why? It costs less than the Canadian ones... but the gov't subsidies to NZ farmers, the fuel to transport, the chemicals and resources to store etc., Why all the trouble when there are perfectly good apples in Canada... or maple syrups.

The good thing is you get apples all year round I suppose.

The same applies to us exporting iron ore, rather than cars.
China makes about 30million cars a year, we can fill a ship to 60% capacity with iron ore, it would be about 2% capacity with cars.
How much fuel would be wasted transporting cars, instead of iron ore?

 

[luutzu]

We have people complaining that our mines, farms, infrastructure and even branded companies are being bought by over seas investors, which is a clear sign not enough local capital is being invested in these areas.

But then these same people want to divert our small amount of capital away from these areas and into “pie in the sky” projects.

I am a firm believer that if local investors put more capital into existing industries which require capital, the whole economy would do better and eventually capital saturation would mean capital would naturally flow into other areas.

Yea, as private investors we should do that.

For gov't though... I think the same rules of finance and economics doesn't apply as much.

I mean, they can print money and tax people. That alone mean they can do financially stupid stuff and it could make money if it's spent on productive things. Like roads, bridges, affordable housing.

 

[fiftyeight]

other wise it is just totally misdirected.

This was my point

 

[Smurf1976]

we can fill a ship to 60% capacity with iron ore, it would be about 2% capacity with cars.

Rationally we’d make steel and fill the ship to effectively 100%

 

[SirRumpole]

How about a company just pay tax once they have made an actual profit,

Eg, if they lose $10 Million a year for the first 5 years, ($50 Million loss) then we don’t charge them taxes until they have made that $50 million loss back.

Seems pretty simple to me.

OK then, how about individuals don't pay tax until they have paid off their home loans ?

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[overhang]

Yea, I made "good" money on CSL. Bought around low $30s, sold for a cool $42 in a year

I think I made about $1,000 profit on that one.

The first million is the hardest... tell me about it.

We must have got in about the same time, made a nice 40% and was quite happy at the time. Wish I held onto it, such a solid bluechip. Meanwhile I still have that speculative mining stock worth stuff all and lucky to do 10k $ volume a year that just won't die off yet but is still there in the portfolio to remind me of my stuff up those years back.

Mean while the Vic Greens have all the answers, turn us into the next California and beat SA to do it https://reneweconomy.com.au/greens-call-to-phase-out-coal-in-victoria-100-renewables-by-2030-2030/

If I recall at the last VIC election the Greens said if they hold the balance of power they would shutdown all Vic coal plants by 2025. Guess we'll have some nice big redundant Holden and Ford sheds to put the homeless in.

 

[SirRumpole]

Your use of the word risk is inappropriate here. As a generalisation the fact that startups incur huge costs up front is a fact of business not a risk that can be overcome by good management. It is only when the company has paid down those costs that you can say it is profitable and that is what the ATO says too. Starting to tax them before they have paid down costs will at best stifle their growth or at worse drive them out of business. Where on earth do you think the tax take gets paid from?

Not all companies are startups. It's reasonable to give them a fair period of time before they reduce some of their startup losses.

Qantas paid dividends during the time it wasn't paying tax, so if it and other companies can do that then investors can afford to take a haircut as well.

 

[Value Collector]

OK then, how about individuals don't pay tax until they have paid off their home loans ?

Seems pretty simple to me.

Companies don't get to write loan principle repayments off on their tax, only interest is a tax deduction. Companies with loans still pay tax.

Are you talking about investors?

Debt is generally paid off with profit, Principle payments aren't a tax deduction, only interest payments.

So if you have enough income to reduce your investment home loan by $10,000 after you have paid all your expenses including depreciation, that $10,000 loan reduction is your profit, and it taxable.

 

[Value Collector]

Like roads, bridges, affordable housing.

They are already doing those things.