Companies pay no tax
according to the aussie tax office, 670 large companies paid no tax in the last financial year.
who are they? see this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/tax-data-transparency-ato/8106178
But the pensioners and welfare recipients don't donate to the Liberal Party.
The topic is about "Tax" and that's what kfchugo is talking about.
You are off topic with your comment about "donations"
You clearly don't understand how politics works. Those who donate to a party are not going to be mistreated by it.
Sadly, too many older folk never change their vote. The government can do what it likes to them. The rusted-ons will still vote the same way.
Tax policy, as with many policies in business, is often based on what the market will bear.
"You clearly don't understand how politics works."
Hilarious....just ignore this one Micha!!
Congratulations on that in depth response Thea.
Do try to discuss the actual comment, rather than simply engaging in a (pathetic attempt at a) put down.
The topic is about "companies that pay no tax" not "donations to political parties", that calls for a different thread.
Please stay on topic as Micha suggests...
My post is completely ON-topic. I have explained why.
Nothing that happens in politics and government occurs in isolation. That would be a very simplistic view.
Dismissing my comment as off-topic suggests to me you don't have a more intelligent response.
Sigh....
The list supplied by the ABC news, list "turnover" as income. Last time I checked, about 3 months ago, the ATO collects tax on NET profit, not turnover.
Correct...
innes and Radish, I think you missed the point.
Obviously, to pay no tax, they made no "official" profit. The issue is whether that lack of profit is a fair reflection of how the company is actually faring.
Who really benefited from all those company expenses? Highly paid executives?
Did you actually do the books for the 670 Companies referred to Barak. You say that it is obvious that to pay no tax, they make no official profit. Please give facts, proof & source. Why do you insist on making these moronic, ill informed, inane, non sourced, baseless accusations. I own shares in a few of these Companies & I do take the trouble to read the Balance Sheets. I have never seen an an "official Profit" yet. You insist on continually making these ill & un informed baseless accusations & then insist that you are not the subject. You stop every discussion you enter by by imputing incorrect unsourced statements that add nothing to any discussion. You continually insist on "proof & source" of every opinion that is written on here & ignore every single similar request that is made of you.
I'm not playing that game.
It is not a game Barak. You wrote the stupid accusations & I asked you for "facts, proof & source." The obvious answer, without proof on my part, is that your anti business brain dreampt up the accusations & you are not capable of answering the 3 questions.
You are abusing, not discussing. I'm not playing.
Very good to see that most people on this site have good eyesight. There is an awful lot of hair splitting going on, to the detriment of the subject.
It does not take a political genious to make a connection between donations from business or Unions and the direction taken by different governments. I think personal bias is in play here, as I do not believe that the people on this site honestly think governments are not influenced by donations by either.
Or maybe I'm just trying to take some heat away from Barak.
Of course businesses won't pay tax if they can avoid it, the goal for the government should be to work harder on closing loopholes rather than picking the easy fruit from the finnancially disadvantaged. They seem to be able to find plenty of money when it comes to scoring political leverage, but can't make the tax system fairer?
ex PS ... the sound voice of reason
Neither companies, nor individuals, will pay tax if they can avoid it.
Tax laws need to be tightened eliminating opportunities for rorts and loopholes.
kfchugo,
If this were company practice, it is indeed appalling. Independent government auditors would identify this sort of thing it in a second
Great to see a sensible reply rather than the childish bickering in evidence by some of the posts above ex ps,s post
How about a "sensible" reply from you (smiley face!)
I have a friend who worked for a global manufacturing Co before he retired. He told me of a time he ordered a $2 part from the U.S. The part arrived with an invoice for some one hundred and sixty odd dollars which he paid. He subsequently onsold the part to his client for about $5. This is how these companies manage to repatriate monies to their home country and trade at a loss here. I dont see how changes to our tax laws would prevent this type of skulduggery.
kfchugo, I think your friend was uttering a popular back yard story. Why would an American Company repatriate a taxable income of approx., $155 from Australia, where the Corporate tax rate is 28.5%, to America, where the combined Fed., & State Corporate rate is 38.1%? It would be much more likely if the Company HO was in Hong Kong or Ireland.
There are 670 Companies who paid no tax last year. Mostly legal & closely related to the taxable income of the Companies. There are approximately 11 million tax payers in Australia. I have never heard a single person refuse to accept to Taxation rip off of the $18,200 Tax threshhold.
Please expalin "...refuse to accept to Taxation rip off of the $18,200 Tax threshhold".
Presume the figure refers to Tax rates 2016–17 from the ATO ... the tax-free threshold is the first $18,200 of your income.
Full details at: https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/
:) Love your typos Barak, e.g. Please expalin
Does that mean you want a Sarah Palin explanation or that you have moved on from there?
I knew what figures he was talking about. I just couldn't tell what point he was making about them.
Sorry about my typing. I know it's crap. But you oughta see my handwriting! Far worse.
It's a good thing the intellectual content is always of the highest quality. ;-)
:) Barak.
Innes, that's a rather absurd comment and displays gross ignorance and arrogance. Obviously nobody refuses the $18,200 tax free allowance, because it's a legislated, fair and appropriate part of our tax system. It's not a ''rip off''. It serves to balance the tax and welfare systems such that the lower paid - in particular - are able to retain sufficient income to make work worthwhile.
The issue with company tax is that there are far too many ways for businesses to rort the system and not get caught. Just one of these is profit shifting to other countries. Large companies take fake loans - loans from one branch of the company to another - and claim high interest as a tax deduction, but it's interest paid to their own company, so it's really PROFIT.
Just ask and accountant what kind of shady deductions business clients claim! It's a minefield. Even the most honest businesses avoid tax with ''grey area'' claims. Just one is GST. How many businessmen truthfully document every private motoring trip and pay GST on the fuel for private use? Not many!
The bigger the company and the larger the profit, the more rorts and minimization strategies available. You would have to be moronic to believe these 670 large companies would continue to operate if they weren't making profit. Of course they are. Big profit! But there are two good reasons for not declaring: (1) they have to pay tax on it; and (2) they have to distribute it to shareholders. So they find ways to shuffle and juggle and pay the power-brokers in the organization obscene pay and benefits - anything to make it look like there is less profit so that the rort can continue.
Rainey, what you say is largely true but the loans, when used, are not fake, they are very real, very legal and part of the enterprises's global arrangements. And it's not just loans, the use of intermediate marketing companies to direct sales into global markets also enables multinationals to manage income and tax obligations.
The only way to defeat these methods is to implement a turnover or transaction based tax. This is not without risk and could drive further manipulation of profits unless implemented globally. At long last, international governments are awake to the absurd manipulation that has been taking place these past four decades and are now talking among themselves for solutions to defeat these practices.
Despite this handicap, the national government could take action where scarce commodites are involved if only they had the will to eschew politics and act to secure the long term national interest. For example the NW shelf LNG exports – Malaysia raises three times the revenue and Qatar close to three and a half times that of Australia. The gross distortions in iron ore and coal are even worse where attempts to belatedly implement a RRT were crushed. States cannot be expected to negotiate deals for the national interest - a good reason to eliminate this level of government but that is another story.
Government also needs the self-discipline to not give away the windfalls resulting from resource booms in the form of long term tax cuts and hand outs in the pursuit of short term political advantage. Again the national interest should be foremost.
THESE are the avenues Scott Morrison should be investigating to claw back our budget deficit, not the pensioners and welfare recipients who are much easier targets