Tax Hike Disaster.

[Paul1Perth]

Including royalties and fees, the average paid in Oz by miners is huge - well over 50% and is one of the reasons for the downturn in Oz. Its simply becoming too hard to do business. People only see the company tax. They dont see things like everytime i want to drill holes - which is 365 days a year, 24 hours a day - i have to complete a POW. That costs time and money to complete and fees to the department. Then i have to have an environmental inspection - that cost about 10k, then there is the heritage survey - another 20k and so on

 

Yet 85% of RIO's profits STILL came from Australian business and the losses (mostly) from their Canadian operations. Big miners in particular have just jumped on the bandwagon and gone on and on about the cost of doing business in Aus being too much.

 

One thing I heard recently that does need sorting is the money any project has to fork out to "traditional owners" before they can get anything off the ground.

 

On the news last week they were talking about the James Price Point venture being moved offshore. The "traditional owners" now want $1.5billion compensation from the WA government and Woodside AND proper jobs. Seeing as they were PROMISED that when the venture was first talked about. That's on top of the money they've already had to get them to even start talking about developments. Then look at all the protesters that turned up and a lot of them are from the same people that now want a pay out because it's all fallen in a heap. Talk about have your cake and eat it.

 

There's such a thing as bending too far.

[Paul1Perth]

The issue comes down to what is a fair tax. Nobody has yet to show me why the more you earn the higher rate you pay is a fair system.

 

I'm sure nobody wants to pay more tax. We would all love to pay none but what would that lead to? Who would come round to fix the roads, supply water, police, security, health services?

 

Personally I would love to earn enough to be on the top tax rate and happily pay it. I love where I live and if that's what the country asks of me for living here then I would cop it sweet. I'm also sure I'd have tax professionals advising me on how to minimise my tax burden, all legally of course.

[Paul1Perth]

But, there are lots of people, other than the 40 highest paid exec that get slugged with higher taxes.The rate in the UK is 40% for those earning more than 32k. That is not a high income. The top bracket also hits everyone earning more than 150k. That is still, particularly in London, not an obscene amount.

 

The more you slug people, the keener they will be to try to avoid tax.

 

If I was based in the UK, according to online tax calculator, i would pay about 47k a year in tax, but i would use less services - no children, full private healthcare, not claiming benefits, not using public transport. But, i would be paying more than the average salary in tax. Please justify?

 

To keep society ticking over and prevent some scally who feels hard done by 'cos he's not been able to get a job breaking into your house, terrorising your family and robbing you.

 

To prevent a repeat of the riots they had a couple of years ago and to keep the lid on feeling of unrest amongst the young. We're already seeing problems in Greece, Spain, Italy, France with far right groups becoming more powerful. If you want to live in the UK and think you have a great life there then pay up and shut up.

 

Nobody said life was going to be fair.

[The Fisheys]

I'm sure nobody wants to pay more tax. We would all love to pay none but what would that lead to? Who would come round to fix the roads, supply water, police, security, health services?

 

Personally I would love to earn enough to be on the top tax rate and happily pay it. I love where I live and if that's what the country asks of me for living here then I would cop it sweet. I'm also sure I'd have tax professionals advising me on how to minimise my tax burden, all legally of course.

 

The problem would then come when your "tax advisor" told you to leave the UK to save tax!

Presumably it was similar advice that led to arch Socialist and sometime anti poverty campaigner Bono deciding to avoid paying some of his taxes in his native Ireland, paying at a lower rate in The Netherlands instead.

[VERYSTORMY]

Yet 85% of RIO's profits STILL came from Australian business and the losses (mostly) from their Canadian operations. Big miners in particular have just jumped on the bandwagon and gone on and on about the cost of doing business in Aus being too much.

 

One thing I heard recently that does need sorting is the money any project has to fork out to "traditional owners" before they can get anything off the ground.

 

On the news last week they were talking about the James Price Point venture being moved offshore. The "traditional owners" now want $1.5billion compensation from the WA government and Woodside AND proper jobs. Seeing as they were PROMISED that when the venture was first talked about. That's on top of the money they've already had to get them to even start talking about developments. Then look at all the protesters that turned up and a lot of them are from the same people that now want a pay out because it's all fallen in a heap. Talk about have your cake and eat it.

 

There's such a thing as bending too far.

 

Yes, Oz, delivered the biggest profit - but, also some of its biggest losses.

 

I am not disputing that Rio and BHP will make good profits. But, they do pay there fair share of tax.

 

A lot of people also dont realise what mining companies do for towns in the outback. For example, i have worked at mines that fund hospitals, schools, doctors, take reponsibility for roads and often these are for things and towns that are not connected in any way to the mine. For example Sunrise Dam and Granny Smith between them fund the hospital and school in Laverton. Even though they have no staff that live in Laverton.

 

The cost of mining is blowing out by the year in Oz for all the miners and was one of the big reasons why Rio recorded a 25% reduction in profit ast quarter.

 

The legislation in Oz covering mining is also getting harder by the day and more expensive to operate to.

 

Salaries are a massive issue. I used to work at Telfer - one of the biggest gold mines in Oz, employing over 2000 staff and there are twice that number of contractors jobs reliant on it. It is currenty in review as to its existance because of high operating costs. Them costs are mainly salary based - 45% of the cost of production is salary. There are a lot of other mines in the same boat. To put it in perspective, one of the rules of thumb used in mine economics is that production cost attributble to salary should never be more than 10%.

[The Fisheys]

No it hasent, give me links to anybody moving their family abroad because of UK tax, do you not realise tax is higher in most European countries...it's all hot air and a fraction leave the country.

 

Then please use your hotline to Labour Party HQ to tell them to fight the next election on a platform of putting up taxes!

​Never heard of anyone leaving the UK because taxes are too low.

[The Fisheys]

They earn more they pay more,its no great crime in my eyes,its how i expect to be taxed anyway

However,i think a sliding scale based on earnings would be fairer than the system that says once you earn £1 over x amount your tax jumps up by 20%

 

​But the truth is they earn more, they pay much more.

[flag of convenience]

I'm sure nobody wants to pay more tax. We would all love to pay none but what would that lead to? Who would come round to fix the roads, supply water, police, security, health services?

 

Personally I would love to earn enough to be on the top tax rate and happily pay it. I love where I live and if that's what the country asks of me for living here then I would cop it sweet. I'm also sure I'd have tax professionals advising me on how to minimise my tax burden, all legally of course.

 

I say all those that constantly beat the one tax rate drum to stay away. The fact is if the rate is of progressive tax is fair as as reasonably expected to be. The same tax rate benefits those at the very top who would pay far less.

That money would need to be found somewhere which in theory means the middle/low are saddled with higher costs from a narrowing source. GST rises and the like. The rich are constantly improving their lot and greed and entitlement have them crying out for more.

[flag of convenience]

Then please use your hotline to Labour Party HQ to tell them to fight the next election on a platform of putting up taxes!

​Never heard of anyone leaving the UK because taxes are too low.

 

But you may have heard of folk leaving countries due to a breakdown in law and order and lack of civility within society. Who wants to live in a country that knows the value of nothing but the cost of everything. Where decencey towards others and care of those ill,less able to fend for themselves, intolerance and greed ran rampant?

Sadly all too many it would appear.

[flag of convenience]

The problem would then come when your "tax advisor" told you to leave the UK to save tax!

Presumably it was similar advice that led to arch Socialist and sometime anti poverty campaigner Bono deciding to avoid paying some of his taxes in his native Ireland, paying at a lower rate in The Netherlands instead.

 

If the reason you find living in UK too burdensome due to your tax rate as a dentist fine leave. You have the freedom to do so. Thousands of others are lining up to take your place. There are as I am sure you should be aware many ways around paying excessive tax in UK. If one accountant doesn't offer what you want to hear try another.

[flag of convenience]

I'm sure nobody wants to pay more tax. We would all love to pay none but what would that lead to? Who would come round to fix the roads, supply water, police, security, health services?

 

Personally I would love to earn enough to be on the top tax rate and happily pay it. I love where I live and if that's what the country asks of me for living here then I would cop it sweet. I'm also sure I'd have tax professionals advising me on how to minimise my tax burden, all legally of course.

 

This is the whole thing. We want to live in a civil society and all have a share of responsibility. Each to their means. I admit I participate in legal tax reduction paths but still send a cheque the the Australian Tax Dept every year and I accept that the way it is. Even now on a much reduced income.

 

The rates are fair enough..

Earn $50,000 you keep $44,000 of that....

'''''''''''$100,000''''''''''''''''''$75,000''''''''''

........$250,000''''''''''''''''$164,000''''''''''''

 

Ón top of that the richer are more inclined to have other devices in place to reduce tax as well as other avenues of income sources.

 

To suggest one cannot live the good life or in any since hard done by is a myth peddled by the higher earning brigade who no doubt consider their value to be so great to society that they shouldn't pat tax at all and the comsumption tax and its trickle down effect will be a boost for all.

[northshorepom]

Yet 85% of RIO's profits STILL came from Australian business and the losses (mostly) from their Canadian operations. Big miners in particular have just jumped on the bandwagon and gone on and on about the cost of doing business in Aus being too much.

That is mostly about their product mix and the position of the Iron ore price (has been high over the past few years, and volumes are massive so small marginal increases feed through into large $ profits) and the Aluminium price (low) respectively. All the Ally mining operations are struggling

 

What concerns resources companies is their cost base, because whilst they often make gigantic profits, it's all about volume and they are completely at the whim of global commodity prices, over which they have very little influence (same goes for oil & gas companies). So if the price goes the wrong way, they're rapidly exposed. Costs tend to be sticky, especially staff costs. It's hard to reduce them by any means other than firing people, so if they grow too quickly in boom times it just makes the bust all the worst.

 

What will have concerned RT and others is the rapid climb in costs they've seen in project development in particular (I don't think Ops has seen the same rate of increase). It might look like mega profits but they are highly attuned to trends. I don't think it can be denied that cost increases have seen the Capex tap being closed down much more quickly in mining than was envisaged, say, 3 or 4 years ago. It's not as if the iron ore price is that soft

 

One thing I heard recently that does need sorting is the money any project has to fork out to "traditional owners" before they can get anything off the ground.

 

On the news last week they were talking about the James Price Point venture being moved offshore. The "traditional owners" now want $1.5billion compensation from the WA government and Woodside AND proper jobs. Seeing as they were PROMISED that when the venture was first talked about. That's on top of the money they've already had to get them to even start talking about developments. Then look at all the protesters that turned up and a lot of them are from the same people that now want a pay out because it's all fallen in a heap. Talk about have your cake and eat it.

 

There's such a thing as bending too far.

Can't believe you are seriously blaming the indigenous population for cost blowouts in new developments. How dare they, eh?

:no:

[flag of convenience]

The "rich" earning over 40k would pay more tax anyway, by virtue of earning more money. Why should the rate also increase? Flat rates are fairer.

 

It is if you are a high earner as the amount substantially declines. The top 1% would be greatly advantaged.

[The Fisheys]

If the reason you find living in UK too burdensome due to your tax rate as a dentist fine leave. You have the freedom to do so. Thousands of others are lining up to take your place. There are as I am sure you should be aware many ways around paying excessive tax in UK. If one accountant doesn't offer what you want to hear try another.

 

 

I have no personal axe to grind with tax levels. I never earned enough to pay the punitive rates. I was merely wondering what others thought, and there does appear to be divided opinions, although the common thread seems to be revulsion at the antics of certain multi nationals, an acceptance that excessive taxation rates are counterproductive, and the usual suspects who claim to long to pay supertax; all perfectly reasonable points of view.

 

I was rather surprised to see you contend that there are "thousands of others lining up to take your place." I therefore have just looked at the British Dental Journal, Jobs Section, to see whether there was any truth in it. One dentist is looking for a job, couldn't see the rest you were on about, but there are 421 current vacancies. I don't quite see the point of the personal attack, although I suppose if you are unable to prosecute your own point of view then ok, just have a go at me. I thought it was not just common knowledge, but accepted that there is a shortage of dentists in the UK, and that was why the last government opened up two new dental schools to redress the matter.

[The Fisheys]

It is if you are a high earner as the amount substantially declines. The top 1% would be greatly advantaged.

 

I can't follow the arithmetic here. Surely someone earning more pays more, 35% of £200,000 seems more than 35% of £50,000? No wonder you get muddled.

Obviously cutting the top rate of tax will benefit the top 1% of earners, but this is more than made up for by the numbers of people who return to the UK as a result of a less confiscatory tax regime. Again, this is bourne out by the fact that since the coalition reduced the top rate from 50% to 45% another 4,000 people earning in excess of £1,000,000 are now paying taxes again in the UK.

[pablo]

​But the truth is they earn more, they pay much more.

 

Like i said,a sliding scale then,im no economist,but im sure someone could figure a fairer system

[northshorepom]

They earn more they pay more,its no great crime in my eyes,its how i expect to be taxed anyway

However,i think a sliding scale based on earnings would be fairer than the system that says once you earn £1 over x amount your tax jumps up by 20%

 

​But the truth is they earn more, they pay much more.

 

Like i said,a sliding scale then,im no economist,but im sure someone could figure a fairer system

 

Fairer than what? "Fair" is a subjective concept

 

I am sort of surmising you think tax bands aren't fair - ie the 22% (or whatever it is) to 40%.

 

You can always tinker with banding of course, but these are marginal rates. It's not like, you earn $1 more, your tax on everything jumps up. Only on the extra over that takes you into the next band - it doesn't work like stamp duty

 

I don't have much problem with progressive taxation, as per previous (rates going up as earnings go up). I sort of accept it, as most civilised countries work thing that way. I do think there is a tipping point, beyond which people get turned off to the extent they seek ways to avoid, evade, or move somewhere else. Regardless of wealth I don't think it is fair for anyone to be paying more than half their earnings to the taxman, for example. (fwiw those in the UK between 100K and 115K ish pay a marginal rate of 62.5% I think).

 

Most whinges I see about tax rates come either from those who earn a lot and think a flat tax system is "fairer" and those at the bottom of the upper rate who think it's outrageous they are paying the same rate as someone earning 50K more than them. They're still paying a hell of a lot less tax rate as a total percentage of their earnings of course, but that doesn't seem to register

[pablo]

Fairer than what? "Fair" is a subjective concept

 

I am sort of surmising you think tax bands aren't fair - ie the 22% (or whatever it is) to 40%.

 

You can always tinker with banding of course, but these are marginal rates. It's not like, you earn $1 more, your tax on everything jumps up. Only on the extra over that takes you into the next band - it doesn't work like stamp duty

 

 

#Yes,i understand how taxation works ,you pay 40% tax on earnings "over" 32k in the uk,ive been s/employed since 89,so i've got half an idea on taxation now.

Fairer than every £ earned jumping from 20% tax to 40% tax,big jump isnt it?#

 

 

 

I don't have much problem with progressive taxation, as per previous (rates going up as earnings go up). I sort of accept it, as most civilised countries work thing that way. I do think there is a tipping point, beyond which people get turned off to the extent they seek ways to avoid, evade, or move somewhere else. Regardless of wealth I don't think it is fair for anyone to be paying more than half their earnings to the taxman, for example. (fwiw those in the UK between 100K and 115K ish pay a marginal rate of 62.5% I think).

 

#I dont begrudge people earning good money,at the same time i have no sympathy because they pay more tax,i pay more tax than others who earn less than me

I "dont" think theres a tipping point,people will always look to avoid tax no matter the rate,in my eyes anyway#

 

Most whinges I see about tax rates come either from those who earn a lot and think a flat tax system is "fairer" and those at the bottom of the upper rate who think it's outrageous they are paying the same rate as someone earning 50K more than them. They're still paying a hell of a lot less tax rate as a total percentage of their earnings of course, but that doesn't seem to register

 

So,in short,im saying your earnings should be taxed in a "steady" upward curve,not jumping from 20% to 40% once you hit the 32k threshold

[northshorepom]

EDIT: Sorry pabs, missed the "buried" bits

 

Yeah, but it's only the marginal rate that goes up, isn't it? Your overall rate climbs slowly

 

I think a truly sliding scale would be quite complicated/expensive to administer. Maybe there's a case for another band, I dunno, 30% or something between 35 and 70K or whatever

 

But wherever you draw the banding lines, someone is going to get the arse

 

Don't agree with you on the "tipping point". Certainly I felt tipped over the edge, as per previous it was a factor in my leaving. The tipping point will vary for different people of course, but I don't seek to avoid (not really, only by things like tax efficient savings vehicles) tax if I'm happy with the overall rate. Which I was at 40% marginal in the UK, and 45% marginal here (albeit with no NI of course). Anything over 50% marginal and (say) 40% overall is taking the p1ss though IMO

[pablo]

Yeah, but it's only the marginal rate that goes up, isn't it? Your overall rate climbs slowly

 

I think a truly sliding scale would be quite complicated/expensive to administer

 

This system isnt difficult to administer?the whole system we have re taxation needs looking at for me,from the sole trader like me,to the multi nationals

[northshorepom]

This system isnt difficult to administer?the whole system we have re taxation needs looking at for me,from the sole trader like me,to the multi nationals

 

Totally agree, needs a big simplification. One reason I'm not really in favour of complicating the banding. Every time you introduce an allowance or similar, you open up another 10 loopholes. Bit like using the subtle knife in Hi Dark Materials

 

We're never going to agree on taxation of multinationals I don't think. For me it's just a question of what's practically achievable. There's a world between agreeing certain individuals/companies SHOULD pay more tax, and actually being able to draft up legislation that means they do

[pablo]

EDIT: Sorry pabs, missed the "buried" bits

 

Yeah, but it's only the marginal rate that goes up, isn't it? Your overall rate climbs slowly

 

I think a truly sliding scale would be quite complicated/expensive to administer. Maybe there's a case for another band, I dunno, 30% or something between 35 and 70K or whatever

 

But wherever you draw the banding lines, someone is going to get the arse

 

Don't agree with you on the "tipping point". Certainly I felt tipped over the edge, as per previous it was a factor in my leaving. The tipping point will vary for different people of course, but I don't seek to avoid (not really, only by things like tax efficient savings vehicles) tax if I'm happy with the overall rate. Which I was at 40% marginal in the UK, and 45% marginal here (albeit with no NI of course). Anything over 50% marginal and (say) 40% overall is taking the p1ss though IMO

 

No,thats fair enuf nsp,it "was" the tipping point for you,maybe others in your industry who you know as well,i wouldnt argue with you on that,theyre youre experiences/feelings,im just talking in general,or "my feelings" tbh,and im sceptical how many leave over higher taxes,thats all,but tbh,ive never looked into it,maybe theres loads,but my gut feeling is there isnt

 

 

Anyway,thats a few serious posts in one night,enuf!had a smoke,cba thinking...........

[pablo]

Totally agree, needs a big simplification. One reason I'm not really in favour of complicating the banding. Every time you introduce an allowance or similar, you open up another 10 loopholes. Bit like using the subtle knife in Hi Dark Materials

 

We're never going to agree on taxation of multinationals I don't think. For me it's just a question of what's practically achievable. There's a world between agreeing certain individuals/companies SHOULD pay more tax, and actually being able to draft up legislation that means they do

 

No,i understand that,i just wish they at least "tried" to do something,i dont think they try nearly hard enuf,i also think that is a deliberate policy,anyway,enuf from me !!!

[Guest guest74886]

The full, disastrous scale of the confiscatory 50p top tax rate is now becoming clear.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs confirmed that for year 2009/2010 there were 16,000 people in the UK declaring an income of over £1,000,000 per year. Their top rate of income tax was 40%.

Once the ideologically driven, but economically illiterate 50p top rate was brought in, their numbers crashed to 6,000.

To paraphrase, "when the taxman gets tough, the rich get off!"

In cold, hard cash terms the annual loss to us all was an absolute minimum of £4 Billion Pounds a year.

This shortfall has had to be met by those people who couldn't relocate, the poor, people on benefit, pensioners, people on minimum wage, and students.

So next time Millipede and his cronies attempt to seduce you by blathering on about "tax handouts for the rich" just remember what the reality actually is.

There is a maximum amount you can squeeze out of anyone, and it is always the lowest income groups who suffer when taxes are high.

It may be currently fashionable to "Send in the Clowns," just remember the is one group of clowns you never want to let near the Treasury again..................and they wear red roses!

 

No as always, statistics, statistics, damned lies, it just means that their are 10,000 very rich people who have decided to massage their taxation status to avoid paying the higher rate of tax, they will be taking their pay in a whole range of ways to put it beyond the taxmans reach.

People like this don't up sticks and leave the UK, it presents too many rich pickings for them to ever think of leaving.

[Paul1Perth]

The problem would then come when your "tax advisor" told you to leave the UK to save tax!

Presumably it was similar advice that led to arch Socialist and sometime anti poverty campaigner Bono deciding to avoid paying some of his taxes in his native Ireland, paying at a lower rate in The Netherlands instead.

 

Maybe Bono liked living in the Netherlands better than Ireland too. See what you are saying though. Would have thought Bono would be one happy to pay his fair share wouldn't you.