Australian Politics Forum - In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #135 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:52am

crocodile wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 10:52pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:58pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:37pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:34pm:

They 'own' the company via shares, but they do not OWN it.

Perhaps you can tell us who does OWN it? Wink

The few big handlers.... head on down to 'your' company some time and tell them that as an owner you demand certain things right now...

Told you the rules for companies are in need of change.....

On another note - does Jo Bloggs get to walk away from debt etc in the event of failure to pay? Can Jo limit her liability?

You catch my drift.... companies are indeed discrete legal entities - they do not enjoy all rights of an individual, but they certainly have some individuals do not.

Therein lies the problem.

Your drift is absurd. You are free to demand whatever you like. As long as the majority of shareholders agree you will prevail. Not much different to how most things work.

Demanding doesn't mean you'll get it. Roll Eyes

and as I said - you need a majority voting bloc... not just a simple majority in numbers. In fact, your response is absurd.

Go ahead - try it on as 'the owner' ....

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

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #136 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:49am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:48am:

Go talk to Gina about 'your' company'.

You mean Gina Rinehart? Owner of Hancock Prospecting, a PRIVATE company. Shares tightly held. I am not family.

Each shareholder generally gets a vote/share. The more shares you own or the more you can convince others to join you the better chance you have to get a company to change its position. Think Climate Change activists.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:48am:

A company can limit liability - an individual cannot - in the event of failure for the individual, they retain 'ownership' of all debt, companies can say:- "oh, we don't", and the shareholder is held up as sacrosanct and untouchable in the event of company failure and often massive debt.

Of course an individual can. As I said they can declare bankruptcy. No different to a company.

"On 24 June 2010 the Federal Parliament passed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
There were a number of technical “restructuring” type changes to the Bankruptcy Act which included a restructure of the organisation of the “Districts” for Bankruptcy, a streamlined process for remuneration of trustees and increase in penalties for non-complying individuals.

One of the changes was an increase of the minimum debt amount a creditor may issue a bankruptcy notice from $2,000.00 up to $5,000.00"

https://www.smh.com.au/money/go-for-broke-insolvency-can-be-the-best-solution-20...

"Bankruptcy – There is no restriction on the amount of debt you owe to declare bankruptcy. You could owe $2000 or $200,000. "

https://debtrescue.com.au/debt-agreement-vs-bankruptcy/

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:48am:

Let's wait on how the banks squirm out of any sanctions placed on them, shall we? Oh, the poor shareholder - you put your money into the pokie, you take your chances... you lay your money on the gambling table and the joint is closed down by the cops and you lose it - TOUGH! If you're the owner - pay the debts.

The banks are now going to declare bankruptcy? Grin

Oh dear. So now shares are as risky as the gambling table.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #137 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 11:54am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:52am:

Demanding doesn't mean you'll get it. Roll Eyes and as I said - you need a majority voting bloc... not just a simple majority in numbers.

Are you talking shareholders or shareholdings? Because shareholdings is the only way for it to work otherwise a "rump" of 500 that owns 500 shares. one share each, could possibly outvote 400 shareholders with 40,000 shares. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78083
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #138 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:03pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:32pm:

Smithy, your selections from the corporations act don't make any difference. Separate entity simply means that they are a legal entity. The corporation may operate bank accounts, hold contracts and supplier accounts. Even employ people and so on. There is even mention in the text that the company is owned by the shareholders. It is indeed their money and since 1987 for tax purposes has been legislated as such.

I'll repeat 'Means the money the business earns belongs to the company'.

The money is separate to that of the shareholders. Companies pay tax on their profits, shareholders then pay tax on theirs. They are two separate entities. Trying to claim tax paid by one for the benefit of the other is scamming the system.
.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #139 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:55pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:03pm:

I'll repeat 'Means the money the business earns belongs to the company'.

The money is separate to that of the shareholders.

The shareholders are the company. No shareholders? No Company.

Tax is paid up front by the Company for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, on profits. The after tax money, is then distributed in part or in whole to the owners/shareholders. The money has had the tax paid for the owners.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78083 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #140 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:56pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:55pm: Tax is paid up front by the Company for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, on profits. no, tax is paid because they are obliged to pay their taxes.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #141 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:01pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:03pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:32pm:

Smithy, your selections from the corporations act don't make any difference. Separate entity simply means that they are a legal entity. The corporation may operate bank accounts, hold contracts and supplier accounts. Even employ people and so on. There is even mention in the text that the company is owned by the shareholders. It is indeed their money and since 1987 for tax purposes has been legislated as such.

I'll repeat 'Means the money the business earns belongs to the company'.

The money is separate to that of the shareholders. Companies pay tax on their profits, shareholders then pay tax on theirs. They are two separate entities. Trying to claim tax paid by one for the benefit of the other is scamming the system.
.

You can repeat until the cows come home and you are purple and hoarse. The tax act says otherwise.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #142 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:05pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:56pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:55pm:

Tax is paid up front by the Company for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, on profits.

no, tax is paid because they are obliged to pay their taxes.

Sorry ol' Smithy. Corporations can distribute unfranked dividends as well leaving the shareholder to manage their own obligations. They are obliged to pay the taxes on their retained profits but necessarily on their distributions to shareholders.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #143 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:10pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:52am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 10:52pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 9:58pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:37pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 6:34pm:

They 'own' the company via shares, but they do not OWN it.

Perhaps you can tell us who does OWN it? Wink

The few big handlers.... head on down to 'your' company some time and tell them that as an owner you demand certain things right now...

Told you the rules for companies are in need of change.....

On another note - does Jo Bloggs get to walk away from debt etc in the event of failure to pay? Can Jo limit her liability?

You catch my drift.... companies are indeed discrete legal entities - they do not enjoy all rights of an individual, but they certainly have some individuals do not.

Therein lies the problem.

Your drift is absurd. You are free to demand whatever you like. As long as the majority of shareholders agree you will prevail. Not much different to how most things work.

Demanding doesn't mean you'll get it. Roll Eyes

and as I said - you need a majority voting bloc... not just a simple majority in numbers. In fact, your response is absurd.

Go ahead - try it on as 'the owner' ....

So what else works any differently on this planet. Majority rules. A lone shareholder only need convince the other shareholders up to 50.0000001% of the market cap. i.e. half the shares.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78083
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #144 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:19pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:56pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:55pm:

Tax is paid up front by the Company for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, on profits.

no, tax is paid because they are obliged to pay their taxes.

Sorry ol' Smithy. Corporations can distribute unfranked dividends as well leaving the shareholder to manage their own obligations. They are obliged to pay the taxes on their retained profits but necessarily on their distributions to shareholders.

typically, it's the portion of net profit that doesn't attract a tax in the first place that is paid unfranked. Although I suspect once labors new rules come in that will change.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #145 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:20pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 4:48am:

Go talk to Gina about 'your' company'.

'a few activists' don't get to change the way a company operates, unless they develop a sufficiently large voting bloc within the shareholder community, meaning the company overall is not doing it right.

A company can limit liability - an individual cannot - in the event of failure for the individual, they retain 'ownership' of all debt, companies can say:- "oh, we don't", and the shareholder is held up as sacrosanct and untouchable in the event of company failure and often massive debt.

Not hard. It's 'ownership' without responsibility, which is not ownership at all, just a misuse of a word.

Let's wait on how the banks squirm out of any sanctions placed on them, shall we? Oh, the poor shareholder - you put your money into the pokie, you take your chances... you lay your money on the gambling table and the joint is closed down by the cops and you lose it - TOUGH! If you're the owner - pay the debts.

An individual is free to incorporate whenever they wish. Fill in the form, pay the ASIC fee and name registration and you're off to the races. 1 director and 1 shareholder is all that is required.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #146 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:24pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 6:19pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:56pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 1:55pm:

Tax is paid up front by the Company for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, on profits.

no, tax is paid because they are obliged to pay their taxes.

Sorry ol' Smithy. Corporations can distribute unfranked dividends as well leaving the shareholder to manage their own obligations. They are obliged to pay the taxes on their retained profits but necessarily on their distributions to shareholders.

typically, it's the portion of net profit that doesn't attract a tax in the first place that is paid unfranked. Although I suspect once labors new rules come in that will change.

More likely to see an exodus of Australian held stocks in those affected. Not great for local investment. The funds can be shifted easily into international shares where the corporate tax rate is low enough that the franking makes little difference.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78083
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #147 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:33pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:

More likely to see an exodus of Australian held stocks in those affected. Not great for local investment. The funds can be shifted easily into international shares where the corporate tax rate is low enough that the franking makes little difference.

then labor needs to amend the rules so that any profits bought in from o'seas investments are subject to the same taxes as local investments.

For the sake of our Aussie companies you understand. We wouldn't want to put them at a disadvantage Cheesy

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78083 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #148 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:34pm crocodile wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:20pm: 1 director and 1 shareholder is all that is required. has that changed? I understood you needed a minimum of 2 shareholders.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19663 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #149 - Feb 9^th, 2019 at 9:45pm John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:33pm: then labor needs to amend the rules so that any profits bought in from o'seas investments are subject to the same taxes as local investments. They are. They get an allowance on taxes paid in overseas jurisdictions.
Back to top	IP Logged