The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Shell expects to pay Australia no resource tax on gas drawn from Gorgon project

Shell expects to pay Australia no resource tax on gas drawn from Gorgon project

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Habeen,
>If you don't like multinationals doing the mining & extracting the oil & gas,...
> If it annoys you so much that companies earn profit for investment in building something,...

Do you dispute the two statements above are strawmen?

If so, then can you show me where someone expressed opposition to those companies doing the mining or making a big profit, rather than just to how little tax they paid?

Or if not, can you tell us whether your strawmen were deliberate or just a result of poor comprehension on your part? And if they were deliberate, what were you hoping to achieve?
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 1:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY,

You charged: “You and your sources also love to confuse turnover with profit.”

Mate I did no such thing. The discussion was around royalties which are suppose to be charged on volumes rather than tied to profits,

As to reading a PL statement may I suggest you brush up yourself. As Michael West attests Santos tends to confuse the notion of royalties with tax whether deliberately or otherwise.

But you have tried to claim: “But even when they make a loss they still pay royalties, which is why royalties are far superior to a rental resource tax from the taxpayer's point of view.”

Oh if that were entirely true. But it isn't.

If you had scrolled down a little further you would have found Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Section 2: Financial Performance (b) Royalty-related tax expense on page 76.

There you will see the royalty figure of $78 million was then reduced through a deferred tax benefit of $75 million leaving a total royalty bill of $3 million on what was a record production year. This is what this country got for all those millions of tonnes of our mineral resources heading over seas.

So yes the $3 million was correct.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 2:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

Now while Hasbeen might have been dancing a jig over this pissy little figure I'm not sure the rest of us should be. In fact we should be screaming from the roof tops.

In fact how on earth have so many of you allowed yourselves to become so beholden to mineral interests? They have done an extraordinary job of getting ordinary Australians to go in to bat for them.

Look at your opening post. “No tax last year, but the year before it paid at the rate of 33.8% and paid tax at similar rates every year before that to 2011 when my records stopped.”

You deliberately didn't use amounts but rather percentages because it didn't expose how paltry the actual figures were.

You claimed “Despite not making a profit in 2020 they still paid $5 m in income tax, and $30 m the year before, same page.”

Sure the Underlying net profit after tax was $727 million in 2018 and $719 million in 2019 while the Net Profit was $630 million and $674 miliion respectively. This is nowhere near the 33.8% you claimed but at $30 million for 2019 is less than 5%.

But why do you take those figures as gospel in any way reflecting what they actually paid into our coffers as corporate taxes? They paid just $3 million in 2018 and a big fat zero in 2019.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 2:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Does it stiffen the old loins a little to hear Santos paid just $3 million dollars on $1,300,000,000 net profits after tax? Yup $1.3 billion dollars of profit and just 3 million going to support pensioners like you.

You think that is fantastic and for anyone to question it is whinging.

Why are you such a shill for multi nationals ripping off Australians? Do you own shares in them? Well you and your lot have done very well stitching up Australians.

Don't ever you come on here and say you think our battlers need looking after, it will be an utter lie.

You are the mining lobby's patsy and are doing it for free. How sheep like is that?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 2:32:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SR wrote: " The discussion was around royalties which are suppose to be charged on volumes rather than tied to profits,.."

Well no the discussion was around PRRT. Please read the actual article SR originally linked to because it seems he didn't.

The article never mentions royalties. Not once. But it does say..."Shell’s projection that it will never pay any PRRT is revealed in a note dealing with what are called “unrecognised losses” due to tax."

So the resources tax SR whines isn't gunna be paid is PRRT.

Well all know that as soon as there's a number involved SR is out of his depth. And we all know that as soon as SR realises he's screwed up he tries to move the goal posts.

But its a new high (or low?) when SR sets the terms of the discussion and then fails to understand his own terms.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 6:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Mate when you can't even bother reading the previous posts in their entirety you start to bore me.

Graham put to me in his very first post:

“However, the normal royalties regimes collect in bad time and good.”

I then replied:

“And how is that royalty dividend going for you? 2019 had record production volumes but Santos paid only 3 million dollars on Product Sales of over 4 billion dollars.”

The very first sentence of his next post to me reads:

“It seems you can't read a profit and loss statement Steele. If you go to page 63 of that report you will find that they paid $59 million in USD in 2020 plus $154 m in royalty related taxes and $90 m the year before plus $97 m in royalty related taxes. I think your $3 m figure probably refers to a royalty that was income to them.”

He also added:

“But even when they make a loss they still pay royalties, which is why royalties are far superior to a rental resource tax from the taxpayer's point of view.”

You then mince in in your marvelously inimitable style and announce “Well no the discussion was around PRRT.”

Mate, really? Why? Because there was no mention of it in the article? The above quotes form a discussion, the article doesn't. The article's author is not here to have a discussion with. Why have you struggling with this very basic concept?

This got a laugh: “Well all know that as soon as there's a number involved SR is out of his depth.”

Mate you are the only one out of the three of us who hasn't provided a single figure. Both Graham and I have provided well over a dozen apiece. Perhaps you should leave this to the big boys.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 April 2021 7:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy