Tax transparency: Crack down on big companies before cutting welfare, say crossbenchers   

Date
    December 18, 2015
    Canberra Times

The government should not cut benefits to low-income earners if it won't crack down on tax avoidance by large corporations, which costs the budget billions in revenue, crossbenchers say.

Tax transparency data released on Thursday showed 600 of the 1500 largest companies operating in Australia in 2013-14 did not pay a cent in tax.   :(


Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the government has a revenue problem.

Crossbenchers have joined Labor and the Greens in challenging Treasurer Scott Morrison's assertion the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.   :)

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said on Friday any discussion about cutting welfare now had to be "seen in the context of which companies are paying tax and whether they're paying their fair share of tax".

"This has to form part of the equation now," Senator Xenophon said. 


Senator John Madigan has called for corporate tax reform.

"I would suggest that with the release of this information the government has a revenue problem to look at."

Independent Victorian senator John Madigan said the fact so many big companies were paying no tax suggested there was a problem with compliance or Australia's tax law had too many loopholes.

He said the need for reform was obvious. "One issue it does highlight is the unhealthy focus of this government on increasing revenue by slugging those who can least afford it," Senator Madigan said.   :(

He said the biggest savings measure in Mr Morrison's mid-year budget update was a crackdown on welfare compliance.

"Yet there was no mention of cracking down on the top end of town," he said.   :(

"If Scott Morrison can squeeze nearly a billion dollars out of the most vulnerable people in our society, imagine what he could do if he went after his mates in the banking and finance sector."

Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir said that in some cases there were legitimate reasons a company had paid little to no tax.

But he said tax loopholes that made it "easy for big companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax" needed to be closed.

"It's no wonder struggling families look at the overall picture and question the fairness of it all," he said.

"Welfare recipients shouldn't be unfairly treated by a government aiming to balance a budget. Other areas of government expenditure should also be looked at. The income side is equally as important - hence, the current focus on taxation revenue."

Can everybody see budget 2014 outcome all over again for the libs, grab the popcorn , its about to all fall in a heap for the Libs, again  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.   :)

wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:01am:

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the government has a revenue problem. Crossbenchers have joined Labor and the Greens in challenging Treasurer Scott Morrison's assertion the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.   :)

Labor, Greens and crossbenchers have no freaking idea what they are about.

It's like the Greens first it was global cooling then, global warming and now "climate change" so they can have a bet each way

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:01am: Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the government has a revenue problem. Crossbenchers have joined Labor and the Greens in challenging Treasurer Scott Morrison's assertion the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.   :) Labor, Greens and crossbenchers have no freaking idea what they are about. It's like the Greens first it was global cooling then, global warming and now "climate change" so they can have a bet each way

Wow, smell the desperation!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:34am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:32am: wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:01am: Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the government has a revenue problem. Crossbenchers have joined Labor and the Greens in challenging Treasurer Scott Morrison's assertion the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.   :) Labor, Greens and crossbenchers have no freaking idea what they are about. It's like the Greens first it was global cooling then, global warming and now "climate change" so they can have a bet each way Wow, smell the desperation!

wtf?

Bringing up discredited old crap to avoid answering a real question.

Exemptions on super will cost the Budget $170Bn over the forward estimates. I reckon these exemption need to be reduced and eventually gotten rid of entirely.

And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent.  Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue.

What hope is there for rational and good policy-making if our elected representatives dont understand this incredibly simple concept.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:38am:

Bringing up discredited old crap to avoid answering a real question. Exemptions on super will cost the Budget $170Bn over the forward estimates. I reckon these exemption need to be reduced and eventually gotten rid of entirely.

and therefore end the entire purpose of superannuation entirely. Why would ANYONE spend their hard-earned money and put it into super for no benefit and then be unable to access it for decades?  Short answer: no one.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent.

it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D

Why do we pay into super, Longy?

To prepare for retirement, right?

Well, ATM it is to dodge tax. Stuff that.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent.

How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling?
* Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again.
* Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::)


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ...

Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:39am:

... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue.

Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit.

You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D

forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation.

You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax.

Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit.

You just hate companies.

I am very much in favour of any crackdown on companies not paying tax..I do not think its right that a foreign company can do business here and yet escape paying ANY TAX..

thats pathetic and needs to stop....100%....

its the same with good bought on ebay.. let them pay GST...I dont care how small it is...make em pay..

600 companies its mind blowing.. 

if they found 600 welfare recipients fiddling their pensions they would b eon them like a tonn of bricks...

what the heck is this all about?????>..

and lefties dont kid yourself it was any different when your mob was in...

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D

We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies.

THATS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CRANKY ABOUT.....

WHY ARE 600 COMPANIES MAKING MILLIONS OUT OF US AND NOT PAYING ANY TAX???>..

why do you think thats OK?.

we all know about profit and loss... an d if its managed right... its always a loss....

if they only pay $100  a week...... BUT NOTHING

is not acceptable.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies.

Yes but they have ONE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. They are able to organize deductions so their tax liabilities are negligible. This a privilege that most people don't have particularly PAYE's !!

Typically one of the scams is deducting interest payments on loans from another arm of the same company !!

Stop trying to sugar coat it !!

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are.

You're just another Walter Mitty fantasizing about running a successful business after the last failed attempt :D LOL

None of your businesses will ever amount to anything. You're just a one trick pony trying to recreate the past and it's just not happening for you :D LOL

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D

Tax avoidance is illegal.

As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA

cods wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies. THATS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CRANKY ABOUT..... WHY ARE 600 COMPANIES MAKING MILLIONS OUT OF US AND NOT PAYING ANY TAX???>.. why do you think thats OK?. we all know about profit and loss... an d if its managed right... its always a loss.... if they only pay $100  a week...... BUT NOTHING is not acceptable.

You have zero idea of how companies operate.  They are not 'making millions out of you'. Most of them dont sell YOU anything at all.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D Tax avoidance is illegal. As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA

There should be no such thing as tax minimisation - people and companies should pay their tax.

Tax minimisation is only legalised tax avoidance.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D Tax avoidance is illegal. As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA There should be no such thing as tax minimisation - people and companies should pay their tax. Tax minimisation is only legalised tax avoidance.

Companies do pay their taxes otherwise people would end up on serious charges.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are.

What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

cods wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:59am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies. THATS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CRANKY ABOUT..... WHY ARE 600 COMPANIES MAKING MILLIONS OUT OF US AND NOT PAYING ANY TAX???>.. why do you think thats OK?. we all know about profit and loss... an d if its managed right... its always a loss.... if they only pay $100  a week...... BUT NOTHING is not acceptable. You have zero idea of how companies operate.  They are not 'making millions out of you'. Most of them dont sell YOU anything at all.

These people think it should be forbidden for a company to spend their profits expanding their business at great cost.

Expansion is a god thing it creates more jobs therefore more taxpayers.

In the case of Qantas they also appear to be rather ignorant about claiming depreciation on tax which is allowed.

Crack Down On Top End Of Town First

For this government it is already 2 years too late for that.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D Tax avoidance is illegal. As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA There should be no such thing as tax minimisation - people and companies should pay their tax. Tax minimisation is only legalised tax avoidance.

There should be no such thing as discounts on products and sales should be banned.

OF COURSE people and companies shoudl seek to minimise thier tax. Only a fool (ie you) would do otherwishe./

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:42am: cods wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:59am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies. THATS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CRANKY ABOUT..... WHY ARE 600 COMPANIES MAKING MILLIONS OUT OF US AND NOT PAYING ANY TAX???>.. why do you think thats OK?. we all know about profit and loss... an d if its managed right... its always a loss.... if they only pay $100  a week...... BUT NOTHING is not acceptable. You have zero idea of how companies operate.  They are not 'making millions out of you'. Most of them dont sell YOU anything at all. These people think it should be forbidden for a company to spend their profits expanding their business at great cost. Expansion is a god thing it creates more jobs therefore more taxpayers. In the case of Qantas they also appear to be rather ignorant about claiming depreciation on tax which is allowed.

While also ignoring the fact that a large portion of their loss was a TRADING loss.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something?

Yes - Maria is a nasty man -

the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him -

Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies. Yes but they have ONE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. They are able to organize deductions so their tax liabilities are negligible. This a privilege that most people don't have particularly PAYE's !! Typically one of the scams is deducting interest payments on loans from another arm of the same company !! Stop trying to sugar coat it !!

You are wrong. PAYE have the same deductions as companies. If they are required to buy their own desk, computer, tools, contribute to power and water, they can claim it. If they have to borrow to buy their office equipment and rent their space, they can claim that too.


BUT NO ONE HAS TO, DO THEY?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car.

---

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:37am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. You just hate companies. Yes but they have ONE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. They are able to organize deductions so their tax liabilities are negligible. This a privilege that most people don't have particularly PAYE's !! Typically one of the scams is deducting interest payments on loans from another arm of the same company !! Stop trying to sugar coat it !! You are wrong. PAYE have the same deductions as companies. If they are required to buy their own desk, computer, tools, contribute to power and water, they can claim it. If they have to borrow to buy their office equipment and rent their space, they can claim that too. BUT NO ONE HAS TO, DO THEY?

And whilst they are at it lend themselves money and deduct the interest payments :D LOL

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car.

Dear Maria,

you're just jealous of sir Nail's success.

this is forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:38pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Dear Maria, you're just jealous of sir Nail's success. this is forgiven namaste

of his rented room and multi-colour 1992 commodore?

If he were successful he would not make so many drivelling, envy-laced posts.

Maria,

Quote:

of his rented room and multi-colour 1992 commodore? If he were successful he would not make so many drivelling, envy-laced posts.

sir Nail wouldn't lower himself to drive a commodore -

he drives a luxury imported car.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Maria, Quote: of his rented room and multi-colour 1992 commodore? If he were successful he would not make so many drivelling, envy-laced posts. sir Nail wouldn't lower himself to drive a commodore - he drives a luxury imported car.

Which is unnamed of course. Do you mean a Suzuki hatch? Fully imported. Or perhaps a Datsun Sunny?

You really are a dim twit.

wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:01am:

Tax transparency: Crack down on big companies before cutting welfare, say crossbenchers

Why not do both, jump on the welfare bludging scum that infest our country and the companies that employ people.

But most of all clamp down on those free-loading politicians that infest our lives.


The politics of envy has more than enough to go around.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car.

Rusty has always denied being a successful anything, he has always blamed you for making u that little lie. He has never confirmed any of the bullsh1t stories that you are gullible to believe.

He treats you like his useful idiot.



But you two are a very successful team on this board aren't you?  ;D ;D

---

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:00pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Rusty has always denied being a successful anything, he has always blamed you for making u that little lie. He has never confirmed any of the bullsh1t stories that you are gullible to believe. You treats you like his useful idiot. But you two are a very successful team on this board aren't you?  ;D ;D

Bobby doesn't come across as very bright.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:00pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Rusty has always denied being a successful anything, he has always blamed you for making u that little lie. He has never confirmed any of the bullsh1t stories that you are gullible to believe. You treats you like his useful idiot. But you two are a very successful team on this board aren't you?  ;D ;D Bobby doesn't come across as very bright.

Maria - get that silly dress off - take the lippy off -

& put on some trousers.   ;D

cods wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

I am very much in favour of any crackdown on companies not paying tax..I do not think its right that a foreign company can do business here and yet escape paying ANY TAX.. thats pathetic and needs to stop....100%.... its the same with good bought on ebay.. let them pay GST...I dont care how small it is...make em pay.. 600 companies its mind blowing..  if they found 600 welfare recipients fiddling their pensions they would b eon them like a tonn of bricks... what the heck is this all about?????>.. and lefties dont kid yourself it was any different when your mob was in...

Agree cods, it's a disgrace.

And as for it not being different regardless of who is in power, that is mostly true. One main point of difference though - Labor introduced the tax transparency laws, the Liberals want to get rid of them. But both sides have gotten too cosy with large companies. The laws we have today are the sum total of all the laws passed since Federation minus the laws that have been repealed. What has happened over the years is that corporations have lobbied for numerous tax loopholes and corporate welfare and there has not been much effort made to clean out this accumulation of rorts.

The rorts have to be abolished.

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

cods wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: I am very much in favour of any crackdown on companies not paying tax..I do not think its right that a foreign company can do business here and yet escape paying ANY TAX.. thats pathetic and needs to stop....100%.... its the same with good bought on ebay.. let them pay GST...I dont care how small it is...make em pay.. 600 companies its mind blowing..  if they found 600 welfare recipients fiddling their pensions they would b eon them like a tonn of bricks... what the heck is this all about?????>.. and lefties dont kid yourself it was any different when your mob was in... Agree cods, it's a disgrace. And as for it not being different regardless of who is in power, that is mostly true. One main point of difference though - Labor introduced the tax transparency laws, the Liberals want to get rid of them. But both sides have gotten too cosy with large companies. The laws we have today are the sum total of all the laws passed since Federation minus the laws that have been repealed. What has happened over the years is that corporations have lobbied for numerous tax loopholes and corporate welfare and there has not been much effort made to clean out this accumulation of rorts. The rorts have to be abolished.

define your rorts.  Do them one at a time.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax.

And again you fail.

Revenue is not the same as profit or taxable profit. For someone who is claiming to be better informed, your inability to use correct terminology is rather hilarious.

What you fail to understand is that some of these companies are very close to the edge of legality with their tax affairs and some overstep the mark. Why do you think the ATO spends hundreds of millions a year on investigations and enforcement?


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant.

Says the poster who has mixed up "profit" and "taxable profit" several times.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit.

"Associated legitimate costs" ... sounds like you have been spending too much time in the company of organised crime figures. Legitimate costs, legitimate tax deductions, legitimate businessmen, associates ...


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

You just hate companies.

You are a liar. You even lie about your gender, but you're fooling nobody.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car.

Maria drives a Camry, Bobbie. But her hubbie drives a Merc.

Yes, Maria might not be a successful businessman, but she did come from money.

Give credit where credit's due, I say. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Maria, Quote: of his rented room and multi-colour 1992 commodore? If he were successful he would not make so many drivelling, envy-laced posts. sir Nail wouldn't lower himself to drive a commodore - he drives a luxury imported car. Which is unnamed of course. Do you mean a Suzuki hatch? Fully imported. Or perhaps a Datsun Sunny? You really are a dim twit.

and this coming from the dude that would defend Holden and Ford with his life now he is admitting what the product is really like :D LOL

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Maria drives a Camry, Bobbie. But her hubbie drives a Merc. Yes, Maria might not be a successful businessman, but she did come from money. Give credit where credit's due, I say.

so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ?

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. And again you fail. Revenue is not the same as profit or taxable profit. For someone who is claiming to be better informed, your inability to use correct terminology is rather hilarious. What you fail to understand is that some of these companies are very close to the edge of legality with their tax affairs and some overstep the mark. Why do you think the ATO spends hundreds of millions a year on investigations and enforcement? mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. Says the poster who has mixed up "profit" and "taxable profit" several times. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. "Associated legitimate costs" ... sounds like you have been spending too much time in the company of organised crime figures. Legitimate costs, legitimate tax deductions, legitimate businessmen, associates ... mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: You just hate companies. You are a liar. You even lie about your gender, but you're fooling nobody.

So that is a 'no' to detailing these alleged 'rorts'?  Of course you run when asked to detail your issues instead of just issuing blanket complaints - the mark of a fool.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Maria, Quote: of his rented room and multi-colour 1992 commodore? If he were successful he would not make so many drivelling, envy-laced posts. sir Nail wouldn't lower himself to drive a commodore - he drives a luxury imported car. Which is unnamed of course. Do you mean a Suzuki hatch? Fully imported. Or perhaps a Datsun Sunny? You really are a dim twit. and this coming from the dude that would defend Holden and Ford with his life now he is admitting what the product is really like :D LOL

You should try following a conversation just for the novel experience.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Maria drives a Camry, Bobbie. But her hubbie drives a Merc. Yes, Maria might not be a successful businessman, but she did come from money. Give credit where credit's due, I say.  so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ?

According to a number of people I am Longy, Quantum, Lee, General Li and a few others I forget.

Apparently anyone who is educated, articulate and of course, conservative, is the Longy/quantum/lee hybrid.

It largely shows off the limitations of the left-wing brain.

Mostly they make this claim when they have been schooled in a debate.

Who said you are educated or intelligent?

If you were you wouldn’t resort to insult so much.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:36pm:

Who said you are educated or intelligent? If you were you wouldn’t resort to insult so much.

List of Maria's insults from today:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1442900777/690#702

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:22pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. How can you post crap like this that is so utterly wrong? Are you trolling? * Many of these companies are avoiding tax. Looks like you have tax avoidance and tax evasion mixed up again. * Some of these companies are breaking the tax law, and the ATO are investigating some of them. The ATO would have more resources for compliance if the inept Abbott and numbskull Hockey hadn't slashed the ATO's compliance budget by tens of millions of dollars. Good decision, not!!  ::) mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: Apparently the ignorance that afflicts forum posters on here ... Says the poster who doesn't seem to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  ;D mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: ... also afflicts the crossbench senators who appear to struggle with understanding the normally simple concept of PROFIT.  Companies pay tax on PROFIT, not revenue. Again, incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on profit. Companies pay tax on TAXABLE profit. You had best refrain from posting further on this topic until you have mastered the basics of corporate taxation. You are quite the economic retard. These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. The reason people are upset is because like you, they are ignorant fools who think because a company has a revenue of $100M they would therefore automatically be paying $30M in tax. And again you fail. Revenue is not the same as profit or taxable profit. For someone who is claiming to be better informed, your inability to use correct terminology is rather hilarious. What you fail to understand is that some of these companies are very close to the edge of legality with their tax affairs and some overstep the mark. Why do you think the ATO spends hundreds of millions a year on investigations and enforcement? mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: Your misunderstanding of profit vs taxable profit is equally ignorant. Says the poster who has mixed up "profit" and "taxable profit" several times. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: 'profit' is a basic term of revenue minus costs. TAXABLE profit includes finance charges, previous losses and other associated legitimate costs associated with earning the profit. And 30% tax is paid by EVERY COMPANY on its taxable profit. "Associated legitimate costs" ... sounds like you have been spending too much time in the company of organised crime figures. Legitimate costs, legitimate tax deductions, legitimate businessmen, associates ... mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: You just hate companies. You are a liar. You even lie about your gender, but you're fooling nobody. So that is a 'no' to detailing these alleged 'rorts'?  Of course you run when asked to detail your issues instead of just issuing blanket complaints - the mark of a fool.

A sure sign that you're losing an argument is when you resorts to shouting your abuse.

I have detailed some of the rorts before, such as interest rorts and transfer pricing. I'm not going to waste my time detailing them again for your benefit because I know from experience that explaining things to you is like casting pearls before swine and I am not going to waste my time pandering to abusive idiots. I know that you are aware of my previous explanations because you posted in the threads afterwards. You can find them using the search function. If you're unable to use the search function that's not my problem.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:47pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:36pm: Who said you are educated or intelligent? If you were you wouldn’t resort to insult so much. List of Maria's insults from today: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1442900777/690#702

Good thread, I shall use it from now on. Longy-maria abuses me about five times a day on average and I am now going to zero tolerance. Lock and load.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D Tax avoidance is illegal. As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA

Kerry had a lot of money and power, and used it too, while on this earth, but in the end, the great reaper(equaliser) took him rather early in life.

No point providing links or facts to Longy. Either insults or runs away.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:38am:

Bringing up discredited old crap to avoid answering a real question. Exemptions on super will cost the Budget $170Bn over the forward estimates. I reckon these exemption need to be reduced and eventually gotten rid of entirely.

Super tax concessions are the biggest tax rort ever known; has any other country tax-free super for the over sixties?
Australia has enough legal tax rorts, yet some people or companies even try to dodge the least bit of tax required to pay.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:25pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:56am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:42am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:39am: And once again, there is no tax avoidance in these companies at all. If that were so, the ATO would be after them... and they arent. it's all tax avoidance. The fact that it's legal is what people are upset about. :D :D :D forgive longloser. he likes to think that one day he will own one of these big tax avoiding companies :D We all know you never will. You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. What a nasty piece of work you are. Do you get wet from hating on working class people or something? Yes - Maria is a nasty man - the funny thing is that sir Nail is more successful than him - Nail is an international businessman who drives a luxury car. Maria drives a Camry, Bobbie. But her hubbie drives a Merc. Yes, Maria might not be a successful businessman, but she did come from money. Give credit where credit's due, I say.  so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ?

Maria is an ex-negotiator fom Sydney. She was very successful at her craft.

Hubbie is an entrepreneur. He still goes into the office each day. He makes squillions. Maria helps him to spend it all.

Longy runs a small creative writing business, a one-man start-up. The Liberal Party is one of his clients. As Longy used to say, when you're given lemons, make lemonade. It doesn't make much money, but it keeps Longy busy.

Maria has a lot of respect for Longy. Maria never met him (she joined the board the day after Longy left), but she feels she understands him. They might live on opposite sides of the country, but they share a deeply human connection.

It's not that they're that good, just that everybody else are IDIOTS.

Axe the tax.

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:47pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:36pm: Who said you are educated or intelligent? If you were you wouldn’t resort to insult so much. List of Maria's insults from today: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1442900777/690#702 Good thread, I shall use it from now on. Longy-maria abuses me about five times a day on average and I am now going to zero tolerance. Lock and load.

Longy/Maria has always been a real nasty one -

even back from the Yahoo days in 2007 -
before many of us came here when Yahoo politics closed down.

What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:04pm:

What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional!

The rumor is that he got banned as Longy so he disguised himself by coming back as Maria but
his obnoxious writing style was so obvious that everyone knew it was Longy within a few days.

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:47pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:36pm: Who said you are educated or intelligent? If you were you wouldn’t resort to insult so much. List of Maria's insults from today: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1442900777/690#702 Good thread, I shall use it from now on. Longy-maria abuses me about five times a day on average and I am now going to zero tolerance. Lock and load.

Longy/Maria has always been a real nasty one -

even back from the Yahoo days in 2007 -
before many of us came here when Yahoo politics closed down.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:08pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:04pm: What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional! The rumor is that he got banned as Longy so he disguised himself by coming back as Maria but his obnoxious writing style was so obvious that everyone knew it was Longy within a few days.

I'm sorry, that's just not possible.

Maria has integrity. If she was Longy, she would have told us by now.

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:08pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:04pm: What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional! The rumor is that he got banned as Longy so he disguised himself by coming back as Maria but his obnoxious writing style was so obvious that everyone knew it was Longy within a few days. I'm sorry, that's just not possible. Maria has integrity. If she was Longy, she would have told us by now.

Dear Karnal,
you are mistaken -

the weekender has never been honest

you are forgiven

namaste

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated.

by whom? The ATO is one of the most under resourced departments we have. Their chances of being audited are slim at best.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are.

says the unemployed person who is waiting for her husband to set her up  :D :D :D :D


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read.

I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Bobby doesn't come across as very bright.

in that case, you could be twins


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ?

Harvey Dent



Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

Hubbie is an entrepreneur

I sure hope Maria's husband has the good sense to put Maria on the front desk of his new engineering business. ... she's sure to be a hit with the customers :D :D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:08pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:04pm: What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional! The rumor is that he got banned as Longy so he disguised himself by coming back as Maria but his obnoxious writing style was so obvious that everyone knew it was Longy within a few days. I'm sorry, that's just not possible. Maria has integrity. If she was Longy, she would have told us by now. Dear Karnal, you are mistaken - the weekender has never been honest

Now that's just unfair. What has Maria ever said that's dishonest?

For Heaven's sake, she's a retired Christian. She's a married woman. How can you cast aspertions on such a lady?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. says the unemployed person who is waiting for her husband to set her up  :D :D :D :D

Excuse me, Maria's hubbie has already set her up. Maria's just waiting for the pension.

It's only fair. Maria does come from money, you know.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place.

This is probably the most insightful remark on this topic so far.

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:36pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:08pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:04pm: What I don’t understand is why Longy doesn’t get banned despite all the foul insults all day long. When he did get banned recently it must have been for something exceptional! The rumor is that he got banned as Longy so he disguised himself by coming back as Maria but his obnoxious writing style was so obvious that everyone knew it was Longy within a few days. I'm sorry, that's just not possible. Maria has integrity. If she was Longy, she would have told us by now. Dear Karnal, you are mistaken - the weekender has never been honest Now that's just unfair. What has Maria ever said that's dishonest? For Heaven's sake, she's a retired Christian. She's a married woman. How can you cast aspertions on such a lady?

A Christian who receives miracles - yeah right.

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:11pm: I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. This is probably the most insightful remark on this topic so far.

Yes, but why shouldn't governments give business a bit of a leg up? Business makes money and keeps people rich. It sends much of this money to other countries to keep people rich there too.

Surely this is a good thing for our society.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. by whom? The ATO is one of the most under resourced departments we have. Their chances of being audited are slim at best. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. says the unemployed person who is waiting for her husband to set her up  :D :D :D :D Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:42am: As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:09pm: Bobby doesn't come across as very bright. in that case, you could be twins Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:15pm: so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ? Harvey Dent Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Hubbie is an entrepreneur I sure hope Maria's husband has the good sense to put Maria on the front desk of his new engineering business. ... she's sure to be a hit with the customers :D :D

If you read the ATO you would know that MOST of these 600 have been audited, you twit.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:55am: These companies are all acting legally otherwise they would be investigated. by whom? The ATO is one of the most under resourced departments we have. Their chances of being audited are slim at best. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:56am: You lack any of the abilities, drive or desire to improve yourself from the minimum wage renter you currently are. says the unemployed person who is waiting for her husband to set her up  :D :D :D :D Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:42am: As Kerry Packer said if you don't minimise your tax you need your head read. I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:09pm: Bobby doesn't come across as very bright. in that case, you could be twins Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:15pm: so who actually is maria and who is her husband and how does longloser fit into this incestuous circle  ? Harvey Dent Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Hubbie is an entrepreneur I sure hope Maria's husband has the good sense to put Maria on the front desk of his new engineering business. ... she's sure to be a hit with the customers :D :D If you read the ATO you would know that MOST of these 600 have been audited, you twit.

I'm clearly not as clever as you Maria, how do you read the ATO? Can you show me where they say most of the 600 have been audited?

ATO auditing involves rather more than looking at the tax return.

The Libs slashed the workforce of the ATO especially the corporate branch. A lot of the tax experts who did audit company tax returns are now working for the big accounting firms advising companies how to reduce tax using loopholes. This is what you call a spectacular own goal!

Yet this did not come about by chance. It is standard neocon ideology.

Bam wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:11pm: I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. This is probably the most insightful remark on this topic so far.

Yes I thought it was on target as well.

The problem isn't that companies legally pay little or no tax but that our current taxation laws enable and encourages it.

They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:14am:

They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions.

not sure about removing all deductions ... many businesses wouldn't survive if they couldn't claim their deductions, but there are waaaayyyy to many loop holes in the current system that allow them to escape their taxes. One that comes to mind is to stop the transfer of money overseas for tax purposes

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:14am: They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions. not sure about removing all deductions ... many businesses wouldn't survive if they couldn't claim their deductions, but there are waaaayyyy to many loop holes in the current system that allow them to escape their taxes. One that comes to mind is to stop the transfer of money overseas for tax purposes

Another good post.

Many of the deductions are necessary. The problem here is that not all of them are and the rules for some deductions are far too lax. When various multinationals were dragged in front of the Senate to provide an explanation of their tax affairs, they all said much the same thing - they avoid tax because Australian law permits it.

Sending money overseas is a case in point. It's currently legal for multinational corporations to create a financial structure where they "borrow" money from a foreign branch of the same corporation that charges "interest" and then the Australian branch "repays" the "loan". The "interest rate" on these "loans" is well above market rates. And yes, I used scare quotes liberally because this is extremely dubious IMO.

It is not hard to fix this particular rort. Require all corporate loans and debts to be held by an Australian bank (a company incorporated in Australia that holds an Australian banking licence). Any debts that do not conform are either not deductible at all, or have a maximum deemed interest rate equal to the RBA's cash rate, currently 2%.

I would say just let the die hard libs have their last words - they are delusional if they believe the bottom half of the population should be paying more taxes compared to the top half and will just keep pumping out drivel.

If they want Australia to be like America, just move to America then.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:14am:

Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:23pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:11pm: I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. This is probably the most insightful remark on this topic so far. Yes I thought it was on target as well. The problem isn't that companies legally pay little or no tax but that our current taxation laws enable and encourages it. They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions.

How does a business operate without deductions? While somewhat obvious that you dont have the foggiest clue on how business operates, would you like to see how long Coles stays operating if it cannot claim the cost of staff and product as deductions?  I would say 5 minutes max.

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:14am: They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions. not sure about removing all deductions ... many businesses wouldn't survive if they couldn't claim their deductions, but there are waaaayyyy to many loop holes in the current system that allow them to escape their taxes. One that comes to mind is to stop the transfer of money overseas for tax purposes Another good post. Many of the deductions are necessary. The problem here is that not all of them are and the rules for some deductions are far too lax. When various multinationals were dragged in front of the Senate to provide an explanation of their tax affairs, they all said much the same thing - they avoid tax because Australian law permits it. Sending money overseas is a case in point. It's currently legal for multinational corporations to create a financial structure where they "borrow" money from a foreign branch of the same corporation that charges "interest" and then the Australian branch "repays" the "loan". The "interest rate" on these "loans" is well above market rates. And yes, I used scare quotes liberally because this is extremely dubious IMO. It is not hard to fix this particular rort. Require all corporate loans and debts to be held by an Australian bank (a company incorporated in Australia that holds an Australian banking licence). Any debts that do not conform are either not deductible at all, or have a maximum deemed interest rate equal to the RBA's cash rate, currently 2%.

As always, you are making quite silly statements.  When Qantas wants to borrow $8B for new planes where does it go? Down to the local branch of the ANZ?  When BHP needs to raise $3B for a new project does it run a Kickstarter?

Stop fixating on multinationals and actually express you endless hatred of AUSTRALIAN business. Details the deductions you disagree with instead of making wild and unspecified complaints.

And because you are such a whiner about being confronted by a demand for facts, here is a picture just for you.

---

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-stop-flapping-your-gums.png

stunspore wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:21pm:

I would say just let the die hard libs have their last words - they are delusional if they believe the bottom half of the population should be paying more taxes compared to the top half and will just keep pumping out drivel. If they want Australia to be like America, just move to America then.

And you are truly delusional if you think the bottom half pays more tax than the top. That is so provably idiotic that I at first assumed it was a joke.

---

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 2:21pm: I would say just let the die hard libs have their last words - they are delusional if they believe the bottom half of the population should be paying more taxes compared to the top half and will just keep pumping out drivel. If they want Australia to be like America, just move to America then. And you are truly delusional if you think the bottom half pays more tax than the top. That is so provably idiotic that I at first assumed it was a joke.

It's OK maria, you're not really surrounded by idiots .......................... it's just the reflection on your monitor

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:47am:

ATO auditing involves rather more than looking at the tax return. The Libs slashed the workforce of the ATO especially the corporate branch. A lot of the tax experts who did audit company tax returns are now working for the big accounting firms advising companies how to reduce tax using loopholes. This is what you call a spectacular own goal! Yet this did not come about by chance. It is standard neocon ideology.

spectacular own goal!


Which means the poorest & most vulnerable pay too much tax.

Typical Libbo policy.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:47am: ATO auditing involves rather more than looking at the tax return. The Libs slashed the workforce of the ATO especially the corporate branch. A lot of the tax experts who did audit company tax returns are now working for the big accounting firms advising companies how to reduce tax using loopholes. This is what you call a spectacular own goal! Yet this did not come about by chance. It is standard neocon ideology. spectacular own goal! Which means the poorest & most vulnerable pay too much tax. Typical Libbo policy.

You really are quite stupid.

---

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:22pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 1:42pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:14am: They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions. not sure about removing all deductions ... many businesses wouldn't survive if they couldn't claim their deductions, but there are waaaayyyy to many loop holes in the current system that allow them to escape their taxes. One that comes to mind is to stop the transfer of money overseas for tax purposes Another good post. Many of the deductions are necessary. The problem here is that not all of them are and the rules for some deductions are far too lax. When various multinationals were dragged in front of the Senate to provide an explanation of their tax affairs, they all said much the same thing - they avoid tax because Australian law permits it. Sending money overseas is a case in point. It's currently legal for multinational corporations to create a financial structure where they "borrow" money from a foreign branch of the same corporation that charges "interest" and then the Australian branch "repays" the "loan". The "interest rate" on these "loans" is well above market rates. And yes, I used scare quotes liberally because this is extremely dubious IMO. It is not hard to fix this particular rort. Require all corporate loans and debts to be held by an Australian bank (a company incorporated in Australia that holds an Australian banking licence). Any debts that do not conform are either not deductible at all, or have a maximum deemed interest rate equal to the RBA's cash rate, currently 2%. As always, you are making quite silly statements.  When Qantas wants to borrow $8B for new planes where does it go? Down to the local branch of the ANZ?  When BHP needs to raise $3B for a new project does it run a Kickstarter? Stop fixating on multinationals and actually express you endless hatred of AUSTRALIAN business. Details the deductions you disagree with instead of making wild and unspecified complaints. And because you are such a whiner about being confronted by a demand for facts, here is a picture just for you.

Reported again. At this rate you'll be banned by Christmas.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:22pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 1:42pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:14am: They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions. not sure about removing all deductions ... many businesses wouldn't survive if they couldn't claim their deductions, but there are waaaayyyy to many loop holes in the current system that allow them to escape their taxes. One that comes to mind is to stop the transfer of money overseas for tax purposes Another good post. Many of the deductions are necessary. The problem here is that not all of them are and the rules for some deductions are far too lax. When various multinationals were dragged in front of the Senate to provide an explanation of their tax affairs, they all said much the same thing - they avoid tax because Australian law permits it. Sending money overseas is a case in point. It's currently legal for multinational corporations to create a financial structure where they "borrow" money from a foreign branch of the same corporation that charges "interest" and then the Australian branch "repays" the "loan". The "interest rate" on these "loans" is well above market rates. And yes, I used scare quotes liberally because this is extremely dubious IMO. It is not hard to fix this particular rort. Require all corporate loans and debts to be held by an Australian bank (a company incorporated in Australia that holds an Australian banking licence). Any debts that do not conform are either not deductible at all, or have a maximum deemed interest rate equal to the RBA's cash rate, currently 2%. As always, you are making quite silly statements.  When Qantas wants to borrow $8B for new planes where does it go? Down to the local branch of the ANZ?  When BHP needs to raise $3B for a new project does it run a Kickstarter? Stop fixating on multinationals and actually express you endless hatred of AUSTRALIAN business. Details the deductions you disagree with instead of making wild and unspecified complaints.

As always, you have not made even an attempt at a constructive comment but just poo all over what others post. Have you got any solutions for these problems? No, you haven't.

I don't care though, you won't be with us much longer.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 2:21pm: I would say just let the die hard libs have their last words - they are delusional if they believe the bottom half of the population should be paying more taxes compared to the top half and will just keep pumping out drivel. If they want Australia to be like America, just move to America then. And you are truly delusional if you think the bottom half pays more tax than the top. That is so provably idiotic that I at first assumed it was a joke. http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Idiot_Boss.jpg

Maria posted :

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Idiot_Boss.jpg


They typically gather around their king or Queen.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:31pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:47am: ATO auditing involves rather more than looking at the tax return. The Libs slashed the workforce of the ATO especially the corporate branch. A lot of the tax experts who did audit company tax returns are now working for the big accounting firms advising companies how to reduce tax using loopholes. This is what you call a spectacular own goal! Yet this did not come about by chance. It is standard neocon ideology. spectacular own goal! Which means the poorest & most vulnerable pay too much tax. Typical Libbo policy. You really are quite stupid.

The logical  fallacy of -

Argumentum ad hominem

used when a poster can't argue the points & so resorts to a cheap shot.

forgiven

namaste

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:14am: Bam wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:23pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:11pm: I don't blame business for doing what they are allowed to do. I blame the government for allowing it in the first place. This is probably the most insightful remark on this topic so far. Yes I thought it was on target as well. The problem isn't that companies legally pay little or no tax but that our current taxation laws enable and encourages it. They could probably make it an 18% tax and collect more if they removed all deductions. How does a business operate without deductions? While somewhat obvious that you dont have the foggiest clue on how business operates, would you like to see how long Coles stays operating if it cannot claim the cost of staff and product as deductions?  I would say 5 minutes max.

how long Coles stays operating if it cannot claim the cost of staff

Never thought about it before but they do claim this, I can not help to wonder why the taxpayer subsidises almost all employee wages ? No wonder the system is a mess.

Probably the reason that the government is so pro active in keeping wages low, they end up paying for most of it.