-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
K3 said:
A change from 10% to 15% is actually an increase of 50%. Suggestions from some of the libs mention a 25% increase but no-one is proposing only 5%.
You are talking about politics but my view is about tax in general. I like consumption taxes compared with income taxes.K3 said:
There is no proof that compensation will be adhered to but equally there is no guarantee that existing taxes won't get increased either. Every time I get a pay increase my taxes go up because the tax brackets are not adjusted to compensate. Governments talk about not increasing taxes but every year they do through bracket creep.
We have to do something both on the revenue and the spending side. Why I like consumption taxes is because if you consume you pay. Having such a heavy reliance on direct taxation of income and profits makes it easier to avoid paying tax.
Something being done in the superannuation area is inevitable as well, hopefully without retrospectivity
Sintiger said:
No, I am talking about politics and the tax system. IMO they are, unfortunately, hard to separate; largely due to vested interests from within Govt. How many polies go on to excessive wages within the private sector previously entwined with what they did?
My main point is that there really needs to be a wholesale overhaul of the taxation system in Australia, and ideally this would be a bi-partisan effort to ensure that something *actually* happens this time, instead of another million dollar thought bubble.
There are so many examples of how things can be done, from around the world, that I find it disheartening that our systems are lagging behind and that we aren't building a system which encourages business, both small and new, to start up/ move to Australia as well as having focus on areas that will reduce the movement of money to overseas havens; see facebook and google moving their cash to Ireland and Getty Images to Dubai etc While I know this isn't something we can totally tackle on our own, we can put pieces in place to encourage them to pay here, even pay more here to due 'accommodating' tax situation.
Due to our location, Australia really could be the gateway for 'not 100% confident' businesses to launch into Asia. ATM a lot of them locate in Singapore... massive money lost.
</hopsoffsoapbox>
There should be a major tax overhaul but there won't be. I am not arguing against it, just that I am not holding my breath.K3 said:
There are a lot of reasons companies set up in Singapore, proximity to the rest Asia, the airport, international schools. Also the 17% or so corporate tax rate. I have worked in international business and I have seen first hand how income shifting to low tax regime countries works. Unless there is a coordinated effort it is very difficult to change and that is almost impossible because many countries don't want it changed, like Singapore for instance.
3-4 years ago we were in the bottom 25% in terms of tax as a percentage of GDP in the OECD but in the top 3 in terms of percentage of taxation from direct taxes. We can address that by increasing our consumption tax and reducing our income and company tax rates. Maybe then some companies may think about Australia and maybe some MNCs may have less incentive to shift income to Singapore and elsewhere. International income shifting is not too hard really. Just have well written offshore royalty agreements, keep capital low and borrow as much as thin capitalisation rules allow, document your transfer pricing calculations well and suddenly a very profitable business becomes a struggling one because it's IP is owned in the Virgin Islands and it buys it's products from Singapore. Have a company tax rate of 20% or lower and we will be amazed at how profitable many international businesses in Australia will become.
Sintiger said:
I agree with a fair chunk of what you are saying Sin, and have long been a believe of 'drop the tax rate and businesses will stop paying millions to save tens of millions'.
My problem with with the Govt(s) looking to up the GST without talking about their plans for improving the tax system in Oz. I also don't believe that, with the compensation packages being mooted, the revenue will increase to the point of benefit which is being played out through the media. When you add to this the Libs leaked 'stay on the message of...' I have zero trust for their motives and outcomes.
Australia could be the new Singapore, but will we ever be in a position to embrace and encourage businesses to come here in the numbers required, and could?
Fingers crossed the neocons get out of politics and let people who know what they are doing take over. Why the hell don't we have economic experts holding all relevant ministerial portfolios?
The other interesting side to this piece is that the Fed Govt has approved the dredging of the port, pretty much for the exclusive use of Adani. The port, and seabed being dredged is just 19ks from the Barrier Reef.
How can a party, who is all about business, be so blind (or is it just beholden) to the movement away from eating up our planet, for energy? So many country's governments are investing heavily in renewables, yet here our govt still appears to be focused on digging up our country for short-term, low rewards/ high damages and costs, projects like Adani's at Carmichael.
Why?
=====
Are we witnessing a turning point in the future of coal?
Opinion
By Ian Verrender
Posted about 4 hours ago
Open cut coal mine
Photo: Coal prices have collapsed and global demand is waning, in the oft-repeated boom bust cycle of the resource world. (Wikimedia Commons)
If global finance refuses to fund the project, Adani's failure to turn the Carmichael mine into reality may become the defining moment, marking the point when the world turned its back on coal, writes Ian Verrender.
He is a man of either boundless optimism or possesses a stubbornness that is truly heroic.
Under siege from all sides, Gautam Adani doggedly is pressing ahead with plans to build one of the world's biggest coal mines in central Queensland's Galilee Basin.
A $US16.5 billion idea born in the throes of the greatest resources boom in history, Adani has a great deal riding on the Carmichael mine project, the economics of which appear increasingly foolhardy.
His Indian based conglomerate has spent upwards of $US3.3 billion and five years successfully navigating the regulatory maze of state and federal resource project approvals, only to watch the appetite for thermal coal evaporate.
Prices have collapsed and global demand is waning, in the oft-repeated boom bust cycle of the resource world.
But as a growing band of financiers turn their back on the project and as global momentum on climate change gathers pace, the question is not so much whether Adani has missed the boat on a once-in-a-century cyclical opportunity but whether his firm is embarking on a dangerous quest that could end in ruin.
Rather than a mere cyclical downturn, coal appears to be in structural decline.
If global finance refuses to fund the project, Adani's failure to turn Carmichael into reality may become the defining moment, marking the point when the world turned its back on coal.
The Paris Agreement on climate change, signed last month by 195 countries, is a legally binding document that commits to a low carbon future. As the dirtiest fuel, any future move to introduce a carbon price, either by a tax or trading system, will hit coal the hardest and undermine the economics of coal fired power stations and coal mines.
It's therefore no surprise that any banker would baulk at the idea of extending billions of dollars for a project that, over its 60 year life, would not only would flood an extra 2.3 billion tonnes into already swamped market but that could be regulated out of existence.
A fortnight ago, the International Energy Agency released its medium term coal market report with projections out to 2020.
Ordinarily a bullish organisation that is endorsed by the coal industry, its latest tome has adopted a decidedly darker mood. Demand growth forecasts have been slashed.
Macquarie Group's resource analysts said in a note to clients:
This release marks a major pullback from the IEA's prior numbers and supports our general outlook that demand for thermal coal is in structural decline.
Even then, Macquarie reckons the IEA is still way too bullish. With China drastically curbing its demand by 2020, the IEA forecasts a huge uptick in demand from India to take up much of the slack. Macquarie added:
Though we certainly think India will increase production, it will come primarily from domestic sources as Coal India looks to increase production...
This means there is limited upside for Australian producers on the cusp of sustained low prices and project developers looking to build new thermal coal projects reliant on export prices.
Given the deteriorating economic outlook, the logic of building a massive new operation in a region devoid of infrastructure appears deeply flawed.
If Adani is desperate to build an Australian coal empire, why not simply buy existing assets? There's no shortage of distressed assets on the market at knockdown prices.
Earlier this year, Anglo American announced it would sell most of its Queensland coal mines, a process accelerated by a decree earlier this month that the once great company would halve in size and reduce its workforce by 85,000. Such is the pain in coal.
Even more perplexing is Adani's precarious financial position in Australia.
Last week, debt rating agency Moody's warned the company it may downgrade the debt on its Abbot Point terminal, which requires a massive upgrade to cope with projected output from the proposed new Carmichael mine.
The coal loader already is controversial. Its expansion requires a new channel to be cut to allow bigger ships through the Great Barrier Reef marine park, which has attracted the ire of environmentalists and community groups.
Already on the lowest investment grade, any downgrade would rate Adani's Abbot Point debt as junk.
Pointing to plunging global coal prices and fears some of the coal loader's supply contracts could be terminated or not renewed, Moody's said the terminal owner "no longer has sufficient financial flexibility under its existing capital structure to manage these escalating risks".
Remarkably, given these well known risks, the Federal Government until recently appeared receptive to the idea of providing financial support for what would be Australia's biggest coal mine.
Former treasurer Joe Hockey and current Resource Minister Josh Frydenberg both suggested that funds from the $5 billion northern Australia fund could be used to build infrastructure to support the Carmichael mine.
It was an odd stance, given the then treasurer's repeated attacks on subsidies to renewables and his insistence clean energy would have to compete with fossil fuel power generation.
Since then, Frydenberg has all but ruled out government support for Adani. But he has maintained his previous leader's stance that there is a "strong moral case for coal" to alleviate global "energy poverty" in the developing world.
As pointed out here previously, the "coal is good for humanity" argument was devised by public relations firm Burson-Marsteller for Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal miner that, according to a study by The Australia Institute, has never provided any financial or staff support to alleviate energy poverty anywhere.
As Adani can attest, even those suffering "energy poverty" aren't overly enthused about the idea of burning coal to alleviate their situation, especially if it is in their own backyard.
On Sunday, residents from 10 villages in the Surguja district of Chhattisgarh banded together to thwart construction of a 600mw coal fired power plant proposed by Adani.
The plant will use reject high ash content coal from its own mine, with the washed coal shifted to Rajasthan, in a move that has enraged local farmers who already claim that coal mining in the area is destroying the environment and their livelihood.
Gautam Adani's rise is a remarkable tale. A university dropout, he founded the group in 1988, starting with a few hundred rupees, eventually building one of India's biggest corporate empires with tentacles across commodities, trading, energy and infrastructure.
But his persistence with the troubled Carmichael mine may well extend his fame beyond India and Australia and into the annals of history; for all the wrong reasons.
Ian Verrender is the ABC's business editor and writes a weekly column for The Drum.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-29/verrender-a-turning-point-in-the-future-of-coal/7057474
How can a party, who is all about business, be so blind (or is it just beholden) to the movement away from eating up our planet, for energy? So many country's governments are investing heavily in renewables, yet here our govt still appears to be focused on digging up our country for short-term, low rewards/ high damages and costs, projects like Adani's at Carmichael.
Why?
=====
Are we witnessing a turning point in the future of coal?
Opinion
By Ian Verrender
Posted about 4 hours ago
Open cut coal mine
Photo: Coal prices have collapsed and global demand is waning, in the oft-repeated boom bust cycle of the resource world. (Wikimedia Commons)
If global finance refuses to fund the project, Adani's failure to turn the Carmichael mine into reality may become the defining moment, marking the point when the world turned its back on coal, writes Ian Verrender.
He is a man of either boundless optimism or possesses a stubbornness that is truly heroic.
Under siege from all sides, Gautam Adani doggedly is pressing ahead with plans to build one of the world's biggest coal mines in central Queensland's Galilee Basin.
A $US16.5 billion idea born in the throes of the greatest resources boom in history, Adani has a great deal riding on the Carmichael mine project, the economics of which appear increasingly foolhardy.
His Indian based conglomerate has spent upwards of $US3.3 billion and five years successfully navigating the regulatory maze of state and federal resource project approvals, only to watch the appetite for thermal coal evaporate.
Prices have collapsed and global demand is waning, in the oft-repeated boom bust cycle of the resource world.
But as a growing band of financiers turn their back on the project and as global momentum on climate change gathers pace, the question is not so much whether Adani has missed the boat on a once-in-a-century cyclical opportunity but whether his firm is embarking on a dangerous quest that could end in ruin.
Rather than a mere cyclical downturn, coal appears to be in structural decline.
If global finance refuses to fund the project, Adani's failure to turn Carmichael into reality may become the defining moment, marking the point when the world turned its back on coal.
The Paris Agreement on climate change, signed last month by 195 countries, is a legally binding document that commits to a low carbon future. As the dirtiest fuel, any future move to introduce a carbon price, either by a tax or trading system, will hit coal the hardest and undermine the economics of coal fired power stations and coal mines.
It's therefore no surprise that any banker would baulk at the idea of extending billions of dollars for a project that, over its 60 year life, would not only would flood an extra 2.3 billion tonnes into already swamped market but that could be regulated out of existence.
A fortnight ago, the International Energy Agency released its medium term coal market report with projections out to 2020.
Ordinarily a bullish organisation that is endorsed by the coal industry, its latest tome has adopted a decidedly darker mood. Demand growth forecasts have been slashed.
Macquarie Group's resource analysts said in a note to clients:
This release marks a major pullback from the IEA's prior numbers and supports our general outlook that demand for thermal coal is in structural decline.
Even then, Macquarie reckons the IEA is still way too bullish. With China drastically curbing its demand by 2020, the IEA forecasts a huge uptick in demand from India to take up much of the slack. Macquarie added:
Though we certainly think India will increase production, it will come primarily from domestic sources as Coal India looks to increase production...
This means there is limited upside for Australian producers on the cusp of sustained low prices and project developers looking to build new thermal coal projects reliant on export prices.
Given the deteriorating economic outlook, the logic of building a massive new operation in a region devoid of infrastructure appears deeply flawed.
If Adani is desperate to build an Australian coal empire, why not simply buy existing assets? There's no shortage of distressed assets on the market at knockdown prices.
Earlier this year, Anglo American announced it would sell most of its Queensland coal mines, a process accelerated by a decree earlier this month that the once great company would halve in size and reduce its workforce by 85,000. Such is the pain in coal.
Even more perplexing is Adani's precarious financial position in Australia.
Last week, debt rating agency Moody's warned the company it may downgrade the debt on its Abbot Point terminal, which requires a massive upgrade to cope with projected output from the proposed new Carmichael mine.
The coal loader already is controversial. Its expansion requires a new channel to be cut to allow bigger ships through the Great Barrier Reef marine park, which has attracted the ire of environmentalists and community groups.
Already on the lowest investment grade, any downgrade would rate Adani's Abbot Point debt as junk.
Pointing to plunging global coal prices and fears some of the coal loader's supply contracts could be terminated or not renewed, Moody's said the terminal owner "no longer has sufficient financial flexibility under its existing capital structure to manage these escalating risks".
Remarkably, given these well known risks, the Federal Government until recently appeared receptive to the idea of providing financial support for what would be Australia's biggest coal mine.
Former treasurer Joe Hockey and current Resource Minister Josh Frydenberg both suggested that funds from the $5 billion northern Australia fund could be used to build infrastructure to support the Carmichael mine.
It was an odd stance, given the then treasurer's repeated attacks on subsidies to renewables and his insistence clean energy would have to compete with fossil fuel power generation.
Since then, Frydenberg has all but ruled out government support for Adani. But he has maintained his previous leader's stance that there is a "strong moral case for coal" to alleviate global "energy poverty" in the developing world.
As pointed out here previously, the "coal is good for humanity" argument was devised by public relations firm Burson-Marsteller for Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal miner that, according to a study by The Australia Institute, has never provided any financial or staff support to alleviate energy poverty anywhere.
As Adani can attest, even those suffering "energy poverty" aren't overly enthused about the idea of burning coal to alleviate their situation, especially if it is in their own backyard.
On Sunday, residents from 10 villages in the Surguja district of Chhattisgarh banded together to thwart construction of a 600mw coal fired power plant proposed by Adani.
The plant will use reject high ash content coal from its own mine, with the washed coal shifted to Rajasthan, in a move that has enraged local farmers who already claim that coal mining in the area is destroying the environment and their livelihood.
Gautam Adani's rise is a remarkable tale. A university dropout, he founded the group in 1988, starting with a few hundred rupees, eventually building one of India's biggest corporate empires with tentacles across commodities, trading, energy and infrastructure.
But his persistence with the troubled Carmichael mine may well extend his fame beyond India and Australia and into the annals of history; for all the wrong reasons.
Ian Verrender is the ABC's business editor and writes a weekly column for The Drum.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-29/verrender-a-turning-point-in-the-future-of-coal/7057474
There has been a fair amount of cynical politics over the xmas period, especially in relation to when things get announced. It amazing that the Royal Commission into Unions has made major announcements the day after 2 government ministers get the heave-ho !!
That being said in my view the ALP would be well served by supporting the moves to rid the Union movement of endemic corruption, stand over tactics and bullying. They won't, because the Union movement pays the bills for the ALP, but they should.
That being said in my view the ALP would be well served by supporting the moves to rid the Union movement of endemic corruption, stand over tactics and bullying. They won't, because the Union movement pays the bills for the ALP, but they should.
Sintiger said:
The reason the Royal Commission released its findings in the dead period between Christmas and New Year is because it didn't achieve it's key goals - to besmirch and possibly even find criminal conduct on the part of Shorten and Gillard. It failed to do this - nailing only a few small time corrupt union officials.
So, like the ministerial bye-bye announcements - best to keep it as quiet as possible. I reckon Malcolm was secretly ashamed of this witch-hunt anyhow.
You have been drinking the ALP koolaid Antman. ( btw I am not a Liberal supporter )antman said:
They have recommended criminal action against more than 15 people, including a Victorian MP. A number of these CFMEU thugs will hopefully get charged and the building industry and the building workers will be better off without them.
There is massive corruption in many parts of the Union movement (as there is in business). Call it a which hunt or what you like but the union movement would be better off without the corrupt BS that goes on in many parts of that movement.
Sintiger said:
Yes, but the question that has to be asked is did it need a RC to get the job done? Any corruption uncovered was hardly a surprise - and we all knew the CFMEU has engaged in corrupt practices in any case. And I agree, where there is corruption, throw the book at them.
And the RC was highly political - you can be sure if Dyson Heydon had been able to nail either Gillard or Shorten, he would have. This is the guy who was unable to rule himself out despite speaking at Sir Garfield Barwick Liberal Party fundraisers for years, then claiming he didn't know they were fundraisers.
And because the RC itself was political, it casts a shadow of doubt over any of its findings.
antman said:
If the police don't have the resources or where-with-all to investigate and prosecute then wouldn't the money wasted on this RC witch hunt have been better spent educating and setting up task forces or squads given that the law already prohibits the behaviour uncovered?
In the spirit of the Merry Season...
Agree with Sin that the Unions need a BIG brush put through them. If they got rid of the bikies, and organised crime influences, they would probably gain more support; I know someone who used to be right into the unions but is now very disenfranchised due to the above.
Agree with Antman that the RC failed in it's 'created for this purpose' by not getting to nail Gillard or Shorten.
Agree totally with KR that the RC was 100% not needed and that task forces could have achieved, what would hopefully be a better end, in that they could have taken immediate action.
What was the Labor Party's greatest strength is doing nothing but holding it back these days.
Agree with Sin that the Unions need a BIG brush put through them. If they got rid of the bikies, and organised crime influences, they would probably gain more support; I know someone who used to be right into the unions but is now very disenfranchised due to the above.
Agree with Antman that the RC failed in it's 'created for this purpose' by not getting to nail Gillard or Shorten.
Agree totally with KR that the RC was 100% not needed and that task forces could have achieved, what would hopefully be a better end, in that they could have taken immediate action.
What was the Labor Party's greatest strength is doing nothing but holding it back these days.
The question of whether the RC was needed is fair enough. It was heavily political and maybe there were alternatives but that isn't the point to me. It's happened now so let's all embrace it and get rid of the corrupt influences in the union movement.
That's what the ALP should do but they won't. The union movement pays the ALP bills
Special interests rule politics in this country.
That's what the ALP should do but they won't. The union movement pays the ALP bills
Special interests rule politics in this country.
Re: Re: Talking Politics
don't disagree, but the RC was political. Its the first thing the libs do everytime they get into power, flick the switch on a union corruption RC. Try getting a RC into anything that actually needs one, you have to battle away for years and even then you're struggling to get one up. Big business corruption is OK, union corruption isn't. Or to put it another way, left wing corruption is a horrendous scourge, right wing corruption is just an uncomfortable reality of doing business.
The ALP do have a systemic problem with union links, 30-odd % in the general population but 70-odd % in the ALP. Until they can somehow remedy that, the Australian political system will struggle. People want to elect progressive parties, nobody really wants to vote Liberal, unless you're rich or dumb, but the ALP's wishy washy ineptitude means they get a geurnsey. The ALP is prima facie a progressive party, but they can't actually be a true, responsive progressive party until they can reduce the union influence. easier said than done though, try and talk some blokes into that, 'excuse me fellas, we'd like you to vote yourselves a reduced amount of power'. yeah right.
Time after time the ALP has inquiries into what their problems are, time after time the findings say, 'too much union influence, needs to be halved'. time after time, nothing happens.
Sintiger said:
don't disagree, but the RC was political. Its the first thing the libs do everytime they get into power, flick the switch on a union corruption RC. Try getting a RC into anything that actually needs one, you have to battle away for years and even then you're struggling to get one up. Big business corruption is OK, union corruption isn't. Or to put it another way, left wing corruption is a horrendous scourge, right wing corruption is just an uncomfortable reality of doing business.
The ALP do have a systemic problem with union links, 30-odd % in the general population but 70-odd % in the ALP. Until they can somehow remedy that, the Australian political system will struggle. People want to elect progressive parties, nobody really wants to vote Liberal, unless you're rich or dumb, but the ALP's wishy washy ineptitude means they get a geurnsey. The ALP is prima facie a progressive party, but they can't actually be a true, responsive progressive party until they can reduce the union influence. easier said than done though, try and talk some blokes into that, 'excuse me fellas, we'd like you to vote yourselves a reduced amount of power'. yeah right.
Time after time the ALP has inquiries into what their problems are, time after time the findings say, 'too much union influence, needs to be halved'. time after time, nothing happens.