Back in the BT Asset Mgmt 'shooting the lights out days' (1985 to 1991, particularly Dec qtr 1987), underperforming fund managers would try to argue that they should be chosen as their funds paid lower % of tax. Why? Because they were underperforming (some severely like Equitilink that took out full page advertisements in November 1987 saying their current and future clients would pay zero tax for at least the next three years - come invest with us?
Why? They lost around 57+% (IIRC) in Dec Qtr 1987, so many unrealised losses. Who knew there were so many companies on the Tasmanian Second Board?
Tax minimisation seems to trump the idea of making the greatest possible profits after tax.
A fund I ran, despite using a novel new product I dreamt up, still paid just over 12% tax for the June 1987/88 financial year. I spent the next 6 months having to explain to many trustee boards AND way too many Wholesale Consultants why that was a great result.
The tax changes, will impact those who have been supporting the tax and accounting industry the most. Hence the loud and seemingly well supported mis-information campaigns being sprouted.
________________________
Somebody has to end up paying the taxes required to fund medicare, pensions, public hospitals, fire stations, police, ambulance, public schools, maintain roads, expand rail networks so we don't continuously rank at or near the bottom of the OECD rail speed rankings.
It certainly is not the foreign multi-nationals pulling out natural resources from Australia. Makes you wonder why? Why did Australia's peak spy service bug the East Timorese PM's office and provide the information to the private companies negotiating with East Timor for access to their gas? I did not think we're supposed to hire out ASIO nor ASIS.
The "Witness K" scandal refers to the Australian government's covert bugging of East Timor's (Timor-Leste) cabinet offices in 2004. Conducted by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) during lucrative oil and gas treaty negotiations, the espionage allowed Australia to secure favorable rights in the Timor Sea. [1, 2, 3]
Hmm, how much tax has Australia received from this private company?
________________________
Yes, we'll have to pay more tax than previously, but the previous tax system changes were solely done by the then governing party in an attempt to keep their-snouts-in-the-trough. Not, for any second, did they consider the long term damage to Australia's fiscal health.
Similarly, why does Qatar for producing the same or slightly less LNG each year as Australia earn more in one year than it looks like Australia is going to earn in 30 years? And yes, the very same multinational energy companies are involved in both Qatar & Australia yet for some reason lobbying worked in Australia and not in Qatar? How many senior bureaucrats and Federal MPs subsequently sat on boards of the hundreds of shelf companies involved in the various QLNG projects? Worth doing some trawling perhaps.
