Australian Politics Forum - Top Companies That Pay No Tax

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #195 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:18pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:26pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:31pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:55am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:50am:

When we have some years data I think we can start to draw conclusions. One year is probably not enough data, enough maybe to pick some areas to look into more closely.

I have certainly not said any company or industry is dodging tax or anything like that by dubious means. Carry forward of losses is standard practice, has to be as companies don’t get a tax refund like PAYE earners do.

But in a couple of years I would say some conclusions can start to be drawn.

An example here - Qantas is one of the companies listed as paying no tax. In that financial year the company declared a large loss and this is unusual. In most years the company makes a modest profit.

Where we may exert some scrutiny is the mechanism by which this loss came about. How much of it was a real loss and how much of it was a paper loss?

If we have this information available for several years, we will find that some of those companies paying no tax did so legitimately such as carrying forward prior-year losses. Others did not.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:50am:

Why is the banking and finance so high in companies paying little tax? Banks are making record profits.

Four of the top six companies that paid the most tax were the four major banks.

Are you the only person in Australia unaware that Qantas lost $2B last year alongside most of the worlds airlines? You don't even know what a 'paper loss' is. It is the kind of ignorant crap terminology that buffoons like you love to make.

Qantas did NOT lose $2.6B in 2013-14. Their accountants SAID they did. They had a loss largely made up of accounting fictions that only exist on figurative paper. They decided their aircraft were now worth less and so they announced a $2.6B loss. If they actually lost that amount of money in a year the company would probably be close to insolvent.

Again ... you do not have a clue what you're talking about. This is demonstrated by your inability to grasp the difference between the concepts of "profit" and "taxable profit". It is quite silly how you can keep confusing these simple concepts and try to cast doubt on the credibility of others.

You've unfortunately neglected half the story. When a company makes a capital acquisition it cannot submit the entire book value of the asset as an expense in the same financial year. It either has to paid entirely from retained earnings or enter into lease / financing arrangements. The total cost is not immediately tax deductable.

Instead the asset must be depreciated over the life of the asset and only the depreciation forms an entry on the expense side of the balance sheet. If the asset loses value faster than the depreciation rules allow it is entirely legitimate to write down the value of the asset.

The ATO depreciation rules can be found here: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Income-and-deductions-for-business/Depreciating-...

Beware... That was an accurate, non-ideological explanation. Bam won't be able to cope since he doesnt think Business is in fact entitled to much in the way of deductions at all. Of course, he would complain if those deductions were disallowed and the price of EVERYTHING quintupled.

Poor longy, the liar. Can't even make one post without denigrating others. What you fail to acknowledge is that my explanation was also accurate. Qantas did write down the value of their aircraft, it did mean they declared a huge loss on paper and if they did lose that amount of money for real they would be in financial trouble.

You can never bring yourself to acknowledge any thing I say. You are such a hate-filled person. No wonder you've got no friends and spend all day posting on internet forums.

You're as effective as a eunuch in a harem. Is that why you've adopted a female persona?

They are not PAPER LOSSES, you uneducated buffoon. They didnt buy those aircraft with paper but with real cold cash. and those accelerated depreciation figures are based on real life resale values of those same assets.

Do try and keep up with... you know... the educated people like me and crocodile.

Qantas did not spend $2,600,000,000 of money writing off aircraft in 2013-14. Qantas spent money on aircraft over several prior years and they did an asset writedown in 2013-14.

If you cannot understand the difference, don't bother posting.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #196 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:22pm

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

They ARE paper losses. An internal accounting transaction. They did not physically lose that money, no expenses exceeding revenue.

That does not make the transaction illegal or unwise. It also does not mean the ATO has to accept the transaction, it needs to be justified, a valuation report or the like.

I'll correct you here. Without the accounting fiction of a huge asset writedown, Qantas would still have declared a huge loss in the 2013-14 financial year. The underlying loss was about $660 million.

I suspect the book loss was put in this financial year to get all the bad news out of the way in one financial year. From the market perspective, a $2.5 billion loss in one financial year is not as bad as a $600 million loss in one year and a $1 billion loss in the next.

It's hardly fiction. Assets do lose value over time. They do not always depreciate at the preset rate dictated by the ATO. It lowers the company's effective collateral and diminishes market capitalisation. The effect on the share price would have been rather profound I assume.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96434	Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax Reply #197 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:24pm That's true, Bam, but Maria is educated, you know. She could have done a PhD in maths, but the professors are IDIOTS.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #198 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:32pm

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

They ARE paper losses. An internal accounting transaction. They did not physically lose that money, no expenses exceeding revenue.

That does not make the transaction illegal or unwise. It also does not mean the ATO has to accept the transaction, it needs to be justified, a valuation report or the like.

I'll correct you here. Without the accounting fiction of a huge asset writedown, Qantas would still have declared a huge loss in the 2013-14 financial year. The underlying loss was about $660 million.

I suspect the book loss was put in this financial year to get all the bad news out of the way in one financial year. From the market perspective, a $2.5 billion loss in one financial year is not as bad as a $600 million loss in one year and a $1 billion loss in the next.

It's hardly fiction. Assets do lose value over time. They do not always depreciate at the preset rate dictated by the ATO. It lowers the company's effective collateral and diminishes market capitalisation. The effect on the share price would have been rather profound I assume.

An accounting fiction is similar to a legal fiction. It is assumed to be true for the sake of expediency. It doesn't mean it's false.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #199 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:37pm

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:54pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Qantas did NOT lose $2.6B in 2013-14. Their accountants SAID they did. They had a loss largely made up of accounting fictions that only exist on figurative paper. They decided their aircraft were now worth less and so they announced a $2.6B loss. If they actually lost that amount of money in a year the company would probably be close to insolvent.

You've unfortunately neglected half the story. When a company makes a capital acquisition it cannot submit the entire book value of the asset as an expense in the same financial year. It either has to be paid entirely from retained earnings or enter into lease / financing arrangements. The total cost is not immediately tax deductable.

Instead the asset must be depreciated over the life of the asset and only the depreciation forms an entry on the expense side of the balance sheet in each financial year of it's life. If the asset loses value faster than the depreciation rules allow it is entirely legitimate to write down the value of the asset.

The ATO depreciation rules can be found here: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Income-and-deductions-for-business/Depreciating-...

I did omit details for the sake of a simple explanation. I never said though that Qantas was doing anything wrong. On the contrary, I highlighted the example of Qantas to counter the argument that all the corporations paying no tax must be doing something wrong. Whether Qantas's paper loss is a rort is a different argument. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. But Qantas pays tax most years, hardly the conduct of a bad corporate citizen.

People on both sides of the discussion need to think clearly about this. 3/8 of all companies with over $100 million in revenue paid no tax. Why? We don't know without perusing hundreds of annual reports. It is as wrong to assert that they are all nefariously avoiding or evading tax as it is to assert that none of them are. It is far more likely that the companies are acting differently: some companies are aggressively "minimising" their tax by any means at their disposal, some are simply declaring a book loss in the 2013-14 financial year without doing anything controversial, and others are in between. Until we know for sure, it's premature to assert anything one way or the other.

OK, that's reasonable. At least you have the good sense to see that such a simple list can send the wrong message. I seem a little more concerned about it than you though. I see this as quite possibly being very damaging to an innocent party and in some cases even slanderous and could one day end up before the courts with a juicy damages claim.

I don't find anything particularly alarming that 3/8ths of the listed companies had no assessable tax to pay. This figure represents only the retained earning after all expenses, writedowns, interest and wages have been accounted for. It is not unusual for companies to reinvest a full years earnings back into the organisation. Many of those will be carrying previous losses forward after some pretty difficult previous years. The list doesn't even tell us whether the tax payable column includes the tax component of the shareholders distributions or not.

In all, a pretty piss poor attempt at so called disclosure.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #200 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:45pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

stunspore wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Sad, Swag, just simply sad. If all you have are companies that provide jobs but no additional tax, might as well say the same for government jobs. Government provides jobs, workers pay tax, etc etc.

Companies might provide jobs - but it's the workers who pay the tax from that. Those wages are entitled to the worker. Companies are there to make a profit and that profit must be taxed - because in the end companies benefit from government services - from security, roads, telecommunications, lawful environment etc. They don't pay for those directly always.

The same could be said for the car industries that were closed down.

In either case since they don't pay tax, no point reducing company tax - zero is still zero.

That is pure horseshit. Corporate and payroll taxes account for roughly 1/4 of all government revenues. Just look at the budget breakdown when you get a spare nanosecond.

Crocodile, every now and then a topic comes up that truly exposes the ignorance and low IQ of many of our posters. This one is definitely the best since I've been here. It is like trying to explain Calculus to Karnal... I might as well try and explain astrophysics to him. I dont understand it, but how would he know that?

It's pretty disappointing really. I don't blame the posters for their ignorance as company taxation rules can become quite complex and without exposure to them are not easy to analyse. The annoying thing is that the ignorance sometimes prevails long after much time and energy has been expended attempting to explain it. I really don't get the rabid hatred for the commercial world. Mostly they appear to do the correct thing.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #201 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:14pm

Those who has done some accounting knows a financial report is a snapshot of the company as at 30th June.

Due to carried forward loss rules and other rulings - one year worth of financials gives an incomplete picture of the business.

Any banker who lend money, buyers of the business or business analyst would ask for at least 3 years financials

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #202 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:33am

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

stunspore wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Sad, Swag, just simply sad. If all you have are companies that provide jobs but no additional tax, might as well say the same for government jobs. Government provides jobs, workers pay tax, etc etc.

Companies might provide jobs - but it's the workers who pay the tax from that. Those wages are entitled to the worker. Companies are there to make a profit and that profit must be taxed - because in the end companies benefit from government services - from security, roads, telecommunications, lawful environment etc. They don't pay for those directly always.

The same could be said for the car industries that were closed down.

In either case since they don't pay tax, no point reducing company tax - zero is still zero.

That is pure horseshit. Corporate and payroll taxes account for roughly 1/4 of all government revenues. Just look at the budget breakdown when you get a spare nanosecond.

Crocodile, every now and then a topic comes up that truly exposes the ignorance and low IQ of many of our posters. This one is definitely the best since I've been here. It is like trying to explain Calculus to Karnal... I might as well try and explain astrophysics to him. I dont understand it, but how would he know that?

It's pretty disappointing really. I don't blame the posters for their ignorance as company taxation rules can become quite complex and without exposure to them are not easy to analyse. The annoying thing is that the ignorance sometimes prevails long after much time and energy has been expended attempting to explain it. I really don't get the rabid hatred for the commercial world. Mostly they appear to do the correct thing.

It is quite intriguing why so many people simply HATE business, like Bam etc. And they really do hate them. Envy is an obvious first consideration that somehow a business owner shouldn't be rich when they have to work minimum wage at a servo. Of course they could just be plain stupid.

All in all, this so-called 'transparency' is worse than useless in that it provides nowhere near enough information to make and even half-hearted assessment. It also seems that almost no one understands that the ATO have said they are all behaving legally.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 47794
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #203 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:39am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

Those who has done some accounting knows a financial report is a snapshot of the company as at 30th June.

Due to carried forward loss rules and other rulings - one year worth of financials gives an incomplete picture of the business.

Any banker who lend money, buyers of the business or business analyst would ask for at least 3 years financials

The balance sheet is a snapshot but the P/L is the result over a whole year.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #204 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:49am

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

Those who has done some accounting knows a financial report is a snapshot of the company as at 30th June.

Due to carried forward loss rules and other rulings - one year worth of financials gives an incomplete picture of the business.

Any banker who lend money, buyers of the business or business analyst would ask for at least 3 years financials

The balance sheet is a snapshot but the P/L is the result over a whole year.

P/L stands for PROFIT/LOSS. MOst on here are unaware that P/L is the taxable component.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 47794
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #205 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:51am

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

Those who has done some accounting knows a financial report is a snapshot of the company as at 30th June.

Due to carried forward loss rules and other rulings - one year worth of financials gives an incomplete picture of the business.

Any banker who lend money, buyers of the business or business analyst would ask for at least 3 years financials

The balance sheet is a snapshot but the P/L is the result over a whole year.

P/L stands for PROFIT/LOSS. MOst on here are unaware that P/L is the taxable component.

You reckon? I think most people here know that EBIT is what tax is paid on.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #206 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:54am

It is quite intriguing why so many people simply HATE to debate a topic and they really do hate it. Ignorance is an obvious first consideration that somehow a Discussion shouldn't be about facts and revolve around reason. Of course they could just be plain stupid.

All in all, this so-called 'debating' is worse than useless in that it provides nowhere near enough information to make and even half-hearted assessment. It also seems that almost no one understands that the abuse and denigration are clear symptoms not only of behaving behaving poorly, but, is clearly devoid of facts or reasoning.

That almost wrote itself.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #207 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 12:47pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:33am:

It is quite intriguing why so many people simply HATE business, like Bam etc. And they really do hate them. Envy is an obvious first consideration that somehow a business owner shouldn't be rich when they have to work minimum wage at a servo. Of course they could just be plain stupid.

Another personal attack. Reported.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #208 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 12:57pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

Those who has done some accounting knows a financial report is a snapshot of the company as at 30th June.

Due to carried forward loss rules and other rulings - one year worth of financials gives an incomplete picture of the business.

Any banker who lend money, buyers of the business or business analyst would ask for at least 3 years financials

The balance sheet is a snapshot but the P/L is the result over a whole year.

P/L stands for PROFIT/LOSS. MOst on here are unaware that P/L is the taxable component.

You reckon? I think most people here know that EBIT is what tax is paid on.

...and most would be wrong in that case Huh

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85213
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Top Companies That Pay No Tax
Reply #209 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:06pm

I don't believe this 'politics of envy' has been adequately explained yet.... I did ask...

How is it 'envy' to see someone getting a free ride out of YOUR purse, for example, that you cannot get? I'd say the envy is inherent in those who get those free rides not wanting anyone else to get them..... if everyone got them, profits would go down....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged