The 2015 Prime Minister shuffle

[SeatBackForward]

Rio, BHP and Fortescue are all Australian domiciled, registered and operated in Australia, so I don't think there was much resale price transferring going on (the DLCs first have to satisfy their country of residence obligations, before the cash gets shifted within the DLC structure). Also, prices are set by global markets. They aren't like IT/computer companies who get themselves domiciled in Bahamas or Ireland and carry on from there.

Not so sure there are the bastions of corporate decency you'd like them to be.

The new rules appear to also apply to large Australian-owned multinationals like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto which have been criticised for booking profits in low-tax jurisdictions like Singapore where they have established "marketing hubs"

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politic...-squeeze-under-new-rules-20150916-gjnsyu.html

 

[JohnK]

Seems I missed all the fun. Australia getting closer to Greece by the day.

Oh and another political thread on AFF!

 

[SeatBackForward]

Seems I missed all the fun. Australia getting closer to Greece by the day.

In what way exactly?

 

[Isochronous]

A bit OT but relevant to the mining tax discussion. The mining tax came from a good idea that a country should benefit from the resources gouged out of it by resale price transferring multinationals. It was just very poorly planned and badly implemented and politicians lost their nerve.

Interesting isn't it that Bolivia which produces some estimated 5,400,000 tonnes of Lithium a year has mandated that the mineral must be value added in Bolivia and here in Australia we ship iron and coal offshore as fast as possible for as low as possible price with minimum returns to the country.

Mining companies already pay company tax, payroll tax, and mining royalties. The leftist meme that miners just come along, extract resources, and keep all the money is false - the great advantage of the royalties system is that they pay for the quantity of resource extracted, even if they sell it at a loss; by contrast, the so-called super profits tax does not.

You also have to remember that over the course of the business cycle, mining companies do little better than meet their cost of capital - the boom years are when they compensate for the lean years.

Sorry, I don't get the "@" bit. Most people here call me RooFlyer, or RF; sometimes 'Rooy' and often "that &$%%#@!" . "@" is politer than the last example, but is it shorthand for something like "Esteemed elder"?

The union(s) have been campaigning against Abbott and his government ever since it was sworn in, and against Abbott and his party ever since he was made leader. Sure, with their corrupt practices being systematically exposed by the TURC (which I note they've gutto-ed out of challenging in court) its not surprising they have turned into a wide-eyed, foam-flecked lipped, gurgling sewer of hate in Canning (do you think I put that a bit strong?). Whether or not it was material in Abbott's downfall, who can say. I think most of the party room would increase their support for Abbott if it was a matter of judging him Vs what the unions are doing.

I'm ambivalent about Abbott vs Turnbull. I think Abbott is the superior person, but the weaker politician, and is or was less likely to win the next election for the Libs. If Turnbull can restrain his lurch to the luvvies (and so far he's appearing to do so) - at least till after the next election, then I'll regret Abbott's demise but look forward to the Labor rank and file sharpening the knife for Shorten.

the unions won't need to be so vicious against Turnbull because they know that, at heart, Turnbull is a crony corporatist just like them. He has spent most of his life spouting left-wing values and promoting himself. There is nothing conservative about Turnbull. www.stopturnbull.com contains a great summary of his malodorous life story.

@ = shorthand for "in response to"... no disrespect intended!

Re the TURC: as I said before, Abbot's mistake in setting up the TURC was the terms of reference. If the RC had instead been tasked with identifying corruption across the political divide (ie in the manner of a federal ICAC-style inquiry) there could have been no argument with its intention or outcome. And if it had uncovered wrong-doing on the Labor side, well, throw the book at 'em.

Instead the TURC has wasted money and goodwill pursuing ex-Labor Prime Ministers (and the current LOTO), and focusing on only one side of politics. It has been at times nakedly political, and many of its findings will be dismissed as such.

Re: the mining tax, I will respond later...

If you make the terms of reference so broad, the RC loses all focus and efficacy. There were specific problems identified in union governance during the Rudd/Gillard years, so it made sense to deal with that. Why are the left so against cleaning up unions so they serve their members fairly and honestly?

 

[medhead]

When did Abbott ever leak against Howard, Nelson, or Turnbull?

That is irrelevant to my comment. Abbott took full advantage of leaks against Gillard - i.e. when he was on a quest for power at any cost.

Abbott was unfailingly courteous to Gillard. It was appalling that Gillard abused parliamentary privilege to assert that Abbott was a misogynist. Provide some examples instead of repeating boring extreme left talking points.

You must live is a wonderful alternative reality.
Or my short answer - utter rubbish.

So you don't accept that boat arrivals were lower under Abbott than under Rudd/Gillard?

compare and contrast:

1. Stop the boats
2. lower the number of boats with reference to the number of boat arrivals under Rudd and Juliar (nice respective term there)

One of those is a 3 word policy the under isn't.

I don't know how you define STOP. (Noting that we are all allowed to make up our own definitions for words) But I take the word STOP to mean ZERO, NADA, NIL, NONE, or less than 1. When I accept your comparative measure or not is entirely irrelevant. Abbott promised to STOP the boats. Not reduce the number.

 

[medhead]

the carbon tax (which wasn't a tax on carbon at all)

So you admit that Abbott's "carbon tax" wasn't a carbon tax? Therefore, Gillard didn't introduce a carbon tax. She didn't lie. Again we see basis for Abbott's failure as PM in just making stuff up in order to win power at any cost. That standard has come home now. We can see how low that standard was by the fact that he didn't even last as long as Gillard or Rudd as PM. A disaster of a PM dumped on us by a born to rule mentality.

<redacted>

 

[JessicaTam]

This thread is now closed.

Its benefit for discussion has been outweighed by the difficulty of keeping it on topic.