BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too;

THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of)

Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system.

Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world.

The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis.
Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion.

With combined pre-tax earnings of $30.1 billion, it is no surprise that our big four banks are so highly valued by the sharemarket.

Most modern economies have a couple of banks in their top 10 companies, although the US has none in its top five.

In Australia, banks represent four of the top five behind BHP Billiton, which is now the world's third most valuable company.

But BHP is making profits from genuinely global operations driven by exports. The bigfour banks just gouge long-suffering Australian consumers and businesses. They might dominate the New Zealand banking market but that is the extent of their global success.
Banking is a highly regulated utility business. If the water, gas, electricity or telco industries were pocketing $30 billion annually, consumers would be up in arms.

There are two obvious solutions to this situation. First, competition and regulatory intervention could drive down prices and profit margins for bank consumers. That hasn't worked too well in the past, so why not embrace the second option: a banking super profits tax?

If a Conservative British prime minister can happily embrace a bank tax to help fix his budget deficit, then why not the same in Australia?

Who would need a flood levy if bank shareholders were asked to pay another $2 billion to $3 billion a year through a super profits tax?

The British government is expecting to raise an extra £2.6 billion a year from a
permanent levy on bank assets that was confirmed only last month.

Big bank bosses would no doubt complain, but when you are earning $8 million a year, you can afford to give a bit back.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500

ANZ’s Singapore unit is currently advertising a standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent. By contrast, ANZ Australia’s standard variable interest rate currently sits at 5.88 per cent.

This interest rate differential looks likely to continue,
with the Singaporean Central bank setting the cash rate in June at 0.21 per cent, compared with Australia’s target of 2.5 per cent. At the same time, the Singapore dollar and Australian dollar have traditionally traded in a relatively tight range, minimising currency risk.

With Australian banks targeting foreign investors, a federal parliamentary inquiry this week raised questions about the checks they are conducting on overseas buyers.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/singaporean-investors-hungry-for-a-piece-of-the-australian-housing-market-20140725-zsvj9.html#ixzz3DFFBXIAZ

standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent

Quote:



Still a lot lower than our 6.5 %.

You are forgiven

namaste

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:


So how much lower is the top income tax rate in the USA compared to Australia, do well off Australians pay far more tax than those in the USA?

What do the low income tax rates in the USA have to do with high income tax rates in Australia?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:41am:



Ours is not 6.5% but 5.88% and theirs is NOT 0.25% as you stated as a "fact".

So you are totally wrong on that point


What about foreigners owning most of the shares in our mining companies, want to have a go at that or just concede defeat now?

Frig it doesn't take too much effort to do some basic research.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:53am:




Maybe I got mixed up with the cash rate & the interest rate.

the underlying fact is true:

The Chinese are able to buy our houses at a much reduced rate.