Top 40 Tax Dodgers 2019

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by harry_mr, Dec 26, 2019.

  1. harry_mr

    harry_mr Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The $10K cash ban is supposed to catch out the black market tax dodgers while millions in unpaid tax leaves the country. If ensuring tax compliance is the priority then start by collecting what is due from these companies. Over 4 years I might add.
    https://www.michaelwest.com.au/top-40-tax-dodgers-2019/
     
    66rounds and GoldenEye like this.
  2. Number 47

    Number 47 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Some evade tax, others avoid paying more than they need to. Kerry summed it up perfectly from the 4:50 mark.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
  3. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    Firstly, company tax isn't paid on income...... it is paid on profit. So the numbers quoted are misleading.
    However, lets assume they are correct, for arguments sake.

    The total company income for the last 4 years listed in the top 40 above is $410 billion, with minimal tax paid.
    Now, compare to Australia's welfare bill over the same period: $665.6 billion of welfare income paid by people like me - and ZERO tax paid.

    If we want to get whingy about what others are getting, I'd suggest starting with the low-hanging fruit. ;)
     
  4. 66rounds

    66rounds Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Tax management is one thing. Billion dollar companies that distribute yearly profit dividends to their share holders but yet pay a measly rate of tax is clear and utter theft.

    Personally I believe in a minimalist non taxing government but in the current system we live under, it's clear the little guy gets the short end of the stick and big business laughs all the way to the bank.
     
  5. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    Really?
    Well start taxing the pants off them, watch them leave and take the jobs with them, and then see how well off we are.
    Not sure why we have a disdain for successful entities in Australia? Without them we'd be fkd.
    I guess it's just tall poppy syndrome?

    If your philosophy is "we need to take more from them, so the guberment can give more to me...", then that is 1st grade theft.
     
    silverhair likes this.
  6. 66rounds

    66rounds Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Did you miss the part where I stated that a minimalist non-taxing (barely present) government is my preference? Im just asking for a level playing field. If all big business have to pay tax according to the law, then they all should. If one gets away with not paying, it disadvantages competition. Does that not cost jobs?
     
  7. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,628
    Likes Received:
    3,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    The fact is that the laws favour tax evasion and until the holes are plugged nothing will change. Tax avoidance by off shore banking schemes, a myriad of shelf companies and an army of lawyers and lobbyists convincing the government that this is somehow a good idea is the start of the problem.

    Everyone knows the game is rigged and dishonest. Only poor people pay tax.
     
    66rounds likes this.
  8. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only scam is the tax itself. Nothing wrong with keeping what you earn. Some are better at it then others.
    One fact is, you'll never get ahead in life by paying taxes.
    It should be every citizens duty to starve the beast that tramples you.
     
    Arch Stanton and wrcmad like this.
  9. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    I have a different perspective - the tax system is dishonest because it takes from the honest productive person, and gives to the majority undeserving.
    While the philosophy is to penalise the productive, and reward the underserving, then I consider tax avoidance a fair game.
    BTW, there are no poor people paying tax in Australia - by definition, even a single aged pensioner in Australia lies near the top 5% of global income earners. If you are poor in Australia, you are simply shyte at managing money.
     
    Oddjob, mmm....shiney! and Shaddam IV like this.
  10. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,040
    Likes Received:
    4,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    I think that productive, honest people would be less resentful of paying tax if it wasn’t being wasted at a prodigious rate. Julia Gillard donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to buy herself a seat as the chair of a dodgy fake children’s charity. She still holds that position.
     
  11. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Obviously you know how franking credits work. They're designed to remove double taxation and if you have an industry or retail superfund which is the vast majority of "little people" in Australia you are the beneficiary. So the playing field has been levelled for the little guy.

    However, the playing field is not level for the biggest corporations in Australia as they pay more company tax than smaller companies. This probably won't change for a while because Labor and The Greens and their voters are retarded and these two parties, along with left-wing press and special interest groups, deliberately misinform the electorate. The best example is in articles such as the one linked above which @wrcmad has already debunked here.

    This is an old article but it claims that 36% of companies in Australia paid no tax (chiefly because they didn't earn any profits for a variety of reasons), therefore it means that 64% of companies operating in Australia do pay tax. Your premise is incorrect, tax is not just paid by poor people.

    https://www.theguardian.com/austral...6-of-big-firms-and-multinationals-paid-no-tax
     
    wrcmad likes this.
  12. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    4,064
    Likes Received:
    4,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    As someone who has spent years reading financial accounts, the simplistic view taken by Michael West is flawed as noted by @wrcmad. One also has to read the full profit and loss statements and accompanying notes to partially understand what is going on with a company.

    If Michael West or others are suggesting that tax losses incurred in the past should not be held over to reduce tax payable in future years, then to channel "Sir Humphrey" it would be a brave, nee courageous politician to remove tax deductions that are available to the general public (mums and dads) especially those that reduce capital gains tax payable...(a Labor initiative) on their retirement invetsment property, share portfolio etc.....I guess that would apply to the politicians too.;)
     
    petey, wrcmad, 66rounds and 2 others like this.
  13. dross

    dross Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Australia
    The main issue i have is that so much money is simply wasted, no one is held to account etc. Example the Brisbane city council town hall refurbishment. A person i know was asked to estimate the total cost of refurb works, upon receiving the estimate the PTB didn't like it so simply dismissed it and him & went about paying an insane amount for a consultant to do the sums. Short story long the estimate when added to the consultants fee came the almost the same amount. As a side note when the works started the council had the nerve to add an option to donate to the works on each rates notice at the time. This kind of thing happens thousands of times at all levels, so much more could be done with the same amount spent if we had people who actually cared in the least, they don't.
     
    mmm....shiney! and 66rounds like this.
  14. harry_mr

    harry_mr Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Markets at all time highs and these companies show SFA operating profit that would require them to give back some of their gains that they have enjoyed from conducting business in a well developed and well regulated country using its roads, ports, rails and network infrastructure that they themsleves have likely have never contributed to the construction or maintenance of... really? If you have run a business you know that employees are essentially an overhead who's costs needs to be recouped by on selling their ability, productivity or services so no one is employing these workers out of the goodness of their heart. Income tax derived from these workers is of course different to company tax. Yes we have a distorted tax system but it still allows for deductions, these companies are turning over +$6 billion and cant show a dime in profit. As I stated we are a soft target.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
    66rounds likes this.
  15. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    4,064
    Likes Received:
    4,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    With all things we don't like about government or society...we have three options.

    1) Run for office and try and fix things. Chances are unless you become PM or Treasurer you'll have no chance.

    2) Join / start a lobby group, get funding and pressure politicians into making a change.

    3) If one elects not to pursue options (1) and (2), then you'll have to cop it sweet...the law is the law unless you strive to change it. Whinging won't help.
     
    openeyes and 66rounds like this.
  16. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,628
    Likes Received:
    3,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    This is anecdotal but to my mind explains a lot of the issues that have been raised in this thread.

    At one stage in my varied and occupationally inconsistent working life I worked in (small country council) local government (counting the beans.)

    The head of the administrative processes of the council was a 'career' public servant, with about 35 years in the saddle when I started as an underling. In conversation he once told me that he'd always wanted the life of an administrator in the public service and that he saw "public service" as an honorable career. He saw his job as enabling the wishes of the elected Councillors, ensuring that the ratepayers received the best possible value for the annual rates they paid, and as he put it, "making sure these clowns don't break the law when they raid the cookie jar". Meaning that there are (or there 'was') laws governing the processes and justifications of actions of the Council.

    I saw this in action constantly, where a newly elected Councillor would come in with his hobby horse and try and commit funds to pet projects, and when my boss pointed out either, 1. not legal to spend the money without a necessary process, or 2. what works will not proceed instead, or what rate increase will be made for the project.

    Now the point of this post is, my boss was retiring age, he'd been a pre-war baby, with a public service career dating from the 1950s. In the Council sessions, he was constantly supported by the conservative councillors and derided by the new, younger councillors. He was not especially conservative, however he was honest and upstanding. He saw a moral and responsible attendance to the local democracy and counted the dollars in his salary, and the dollars the Council spent as under his responsibility to provide honest outcomes and proper value. To him, overspending was like stealing from your neighbours.

    When he retired, he was replaced by a man who took a new title "Chief Executive Officer", who was about 20 years younger. This man had been educated within the inner Melbourne councils and what was immediately obvious after working with him for a few months was that his ethics were flexible and money was for spending.

    This was the first time I'd seen a clearly delineated generational difference to governance.

    The new arrival found fans in those who wanted to pork barrel the electorate and with his annual bonus tied to projects (not budget management!) he quickly got the councillors on side (skills at inner melbourne politicking was handy!) and as a result of his various projects and his bonus, the ratepayers were hit with a 9% rate increase in his first year.

    I may be wrong but this was to me first person experience of a generational difference in approach. The new CEO had little working knowledge of the various Acts which had kept local government relatively honest for 100+ years and he saw the ratepayers as a faucet of money that could be turned on every year when more was required. After he arrived annual rate increases were circa 9% from then on, and as you know, compounding is a bitch.

    So anecdotally, I think that the changes from 'public servant' to employee and the introduction of distancing jargon (shareholders, stakeholders, etc etc) have allowed the various levels of government to be seduced by remote view of where the taxes come from and where they are directed. Working in local government we knew the families where increased rates might affect their daily bread, their kids' schooling etc. I was proud of the work I did there, the efficiencies found, money saved etc since the benefit was directly to my neighbours and the farms and houses I drove past on the way to work each day.

    Not to put it on some anti-youth banner, but the abandoning of ethics and responsibility are what caused the circumstance I've written about above, and it seemed to me to get worse as the older, conservative public servants retired or were put out to pasture.

    I don't know how you get an answer about the profligate spending of the public service and politicians now, but starting at the top, some culpability and responsibility at Ministerial level might be a start. Gold pensions are all very good, but let's see how wasteful the public service is if penalties for malfeasance were reintroduced and a few serial abusers of the credit cards and government cars were imprisoned.

    There used to be a saying - "take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves."
     
    Timmy88, Silver260, dross and 2 others like this.
  17. harry_mr

    harry_mr Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Im not sure if this example is about public servants caring or just incompetence. Having been on both sides I have seen that job promotion in the PS can be about how long you have been in the system or who you worked under when a vacancy appears. Private promotion is more about justifying your abilities in exchange for the jobs remuneration.
     
    dross and 66rounds like this.
  18. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here in the US while I was growing up as a kid, the best jobs were in the free market. The best pay, the best benefits and room for growth of course.
    The only people that took govt jobs were the types of people who couldn't compete for whatever reasons. There was far too many limits for a smart person to want to be a govt clone.
    The inadequate workers that couldn't find gainful employment were destined to eek by under the govt wing.

    Things have shifted since I grew up and now its polar opposite.
    The best paying jobs are now in govt, job security, best benefits, and you can never really get fired.
    Theres been a massive move to the govt sector especially with the current size and expansion of govt and public service unions.
    If you want healthcare, a pension or any sense of a career you.have to work for the govt. You be lucky to find a job in the free market that you could retire from later on, almost impossible.
    The govt has almost completely smothered the free market here and it's the only job market that regularly expands every year with bigger and bigger promises.
    Being able to "make your own wages" is a thing of the past and without having to worry about a profit, the govt can snuff out just about anyone.
     
    66rounds likes this.
  19. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    That's exactly right. Adam Smith made this clear over 200 years ago but still the assumption is that businesses exist to provide jobs. They don't. Jobs, wages and profits are the outcome of consumption. The more consumption, the more jobs, the more wages, the more profits and the more needs and desires being satisfied. And yes there is no reason why we can't have perpetual growth in a world of "finite" resources.

    I don't follow what you mean by "tax derived from these workers is of course different to company tax". Are you referring to income tax?

    Ideally the government should be lowering both the personal tax rate and the company tax rate as each impacts the economy differently, mainly due to the time it takes for impacts to take effect and long term outcomes. Essentially, personal tax cuts take less time to impact and provide a short term gain whereas corporate tax cuts take longer but lead to greater prosperity.

    https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-company-versus-personal-tax-cuts-boost-the-economy-56497

    In the current economic climate the government should be wielding its fiscal policy wand as opposed to relying ono the RBA to wield its monetary policy wand. This means lowering taxes. It could also increase spending on projects like infrastructure construction but this tends to benefit those closest to the trough resulting in owners of construction companies and construction workers getting big fat pay cheques, and an increasing sense of entitlement, at the expense of others. One thing we shouldn't do is seek to tax corporations or the wealthy more - there is no long term positive outcome implementing such a policy.
     
    Silver260, JohnnyBravo300 and wrcmad like this.
  20. Silver260

    Silver260 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    671
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Queensland
    I'm going to play devils advocate, and say that there is evidence ( historical and contemporary), to suggest that there are long term positive outcomes with higher taxes ( or at worst little harm ).

    The Scandinavian countries have the most highly taxed citizens / businesses in the world. Yet they have some of the lowest levels of income inequality and highest happiness ratings globally, as the funds are used to support social programmes / subsidies.

    The US had a top marginal rate of 91% in 1960 ( 70% by 1969 ) . The decade of its highest growth rate, and lowest income inequality.

    What has changed in the global economy, to make such taxation regimes detrimental to an economy? ( Other than every governments race to the bottom, regarding taxation rates.)

    Thoughts??
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.

Share This Page