Huge drop in value - Mining/Gas/Ag town - what to do??

There are SO many articles like this one:

Nocookies

 

Yeah, it shows a clear picture of BHP making a profit.

That's nice, but I thought your argument was relating to the tax they pay (or should pay), not how much profit they produce in isolation to everything else.

I could Google it, but you're the one trying to make the point here (and not doing a very good job of it, let's be honest).

It's true, BHP actually made a bumper profit in 2015, it was all the accountants and tax loopholes that got them down to a 3.65% margin!

 

I learnt today that BHP is Australia's biggest taxpayer..not much else

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-the-16-biggest-tax-paying-companies-in-australia-2015-12

 

Oh please, what are some people trying to argue? That BHP--poor, suffering company that it is--makes not very much profit and pays its fair share of taxes? Give us a break.

 

Read this

http://theconversation.com/factchec...-taxpayer-averaging-8-10b-in-tax-a-year-42253

Im actually quite surprised how much tax they pay. 31%

 

Almost exactly the company tax rate. How bizarre.

 

I'm sure the 80,368 employees of BHP care about them making a profit and thus remaining a viable business and as Radson has pointed out multiple times now, yes BHP pays its taxes. Whether you think that is fair or not is quite irrelevant as no two personal definitions of fair are equal.

 

It's almost like they are actually paying all the taxes they are legally obliged to pay!

 

You said "BHP was generating such BIG profits in a climate of low commodity prices" but then you quoted BHP's profits for FY10 to FY14 when the iron price was above US$100/tonne for all that time except for 3 months at the start of FY10 (although then it still above US$80/tonne). Talk about being moronic (your words).

If one wants to use FY data to prove your assertion, one would use BHP profits since June 2014 when the iron ore price has been consistently below US$100/tonne (is currently around US$40/tonne). The only recent FY actuals we have where BHP has operated "in a climate of low commodity prices" is FY15 which is what I quoted. If you want more data, one would have thought one would have quoted BHP's forecasts for FY16 (where iron ore price is still low) and FY17 (who knows), namely:

2015 2016 2017 3 Years
Revenue 52.267 34.593 37.401 124.261
Profit 1.91 -1.148 4.135 4.897
% Profit 3.65% -3.32% 11.06% 3.94%

An average profit covering last FY, this FY and next FY of 3.94% is a little bigger than 3.65% but it is NOT big!!!

I trust the picture is clearer to you now.

For you, I did that. I also quoted the profit and % profit. I trust you appreciate my efforts.

I believe your point is NOT true and it didn't take me 6 weeks to explain it to you. Sorry.

 

Compare this to Qantas

Revenue 15.8B
Profit - 0.5B (after tax)

3.16%

If Qantas was doing the same revenue as BHP and kept the same % then they would be making 1.65B.

Just remember in 2014 Qantas made a loss of over 0.5B

http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/2015AnnualReport.pdf

@Ozzie in Texas did you cry when Qantas made a loss? Would you cry when BHP makes a loss (according to forecast for 2016)?

Do you invest hoping you lose money?

Lets compare another major miner Rio Tinto

Consolidated sales revenues of $34.8 billion

Net earnings and underlying earnings, which are the focus of the commentary in this report, refer to amounts attributable to the owners of Rio Tinto. The net loss attributable to the owners of Rio Tinto in 2015 totalled $866 million (2014: profit of $6,527 million). The Group recorded a loss in 2015 of $1,719 million (2014: profit of $6,499 million) of which a loss of $853 million (2014: loss of $28 million) was attributable to non-controlling interests.

Loss of 4.93%

http://www.riotinto.com/documents/160211_Rio Tinto 2015 full year results.pdf

Quick we better tax these miners for making mega losses?

Since they are making a loss should government give them 2B so they are back into profit territory?

Yes businesses make profit (that is why they exist) but it is not every year they make profits/increasing profits (their dream). I can recall countless businesses that are not in business today that were highly profitable or even a silver of what their former selves were (yahoo).

You have to take the good (profits) with the bad (losses) and you don't see Rio Tinto/Qantas saying/said it is unfair and crying.

 

Woodside profit plunges 99 per cent on oil price slump

The savage slump in oil prices has exacted a heavy toll on Woodside Petroleum, with its full-year net profit tumbling 99 per cent to just $US26 million ($36.6 million).


It is a massive reversal of fortune from last year's $US2.4 billion result and the record $US3 billion profit reported just three years ago.

5B revenue so profit of 0.52% better tax them quickly!

 

Interesting. Britian's Labour Party will now consider a universal basic income as policy if it can be funded.

The classical example of universalism is the emerging idea of the citizens’ basic income; a policy being experimented with in the Dutch city of Utrecht and in Finland, and already advocated for by some on the British Left: Caroline Lucas recently called for a cross-party commission.

Importantly, it has been championed –at least in principle- by various experts and economists. The major criticism of its enormous cost, most agree, is that it would be offset by ending other costly social policies; policies currently stigmatised and despised.
It is also an idea worth considering because of just how radically reshaped our economy has become and will continue to develop. We have an economy that demands high-skilled jobs but is leaving ordinary people trailing in its dust..

The Only Way is Universal? - Open Labour

 

I really don't care if either Qantas or BHP live or die. They exist because they live or die by exploiting the laws of land.......and by selling their wares.

I as a consumer, can buy or chose not to buy.....either because I can find better prices elsewhere or I don't need them or I can't afford them. I don't feel sorry for them just because the economy .......or the scale of supply/demand has turned against them.

That wasn't the point of my posts. I said that "my property is my property". If my land is commodity rich.....I should receive direct benefit. Full stop.

I don't care if that contrary to current law. Laws can and should be changed......if they can be proven to be corrupt or immorally wrong.

Australia is at odds with common law practice upon which the laws of the land it adopted and rest upon. Politicians *******ized its laws to favour the political system.

Under common law, which Australia originally adopted, gold and silver was the only commodity held in privilege of the Crown. That's it. Gold and silver.......because that was the currency of the land at that time.

Australia's crafty little politicians in more recent years decided that they needed to broaden those terms......to ensure that they received royalties/benefits/tax above and beyond the real beneficiaries ......the original landholders, whomever they may be.....but it ain't the Govt.

My current employers in the US are millionaires.........because "their land is their land"........above and below and to the sky. They are millionaires because they get mineral and oil and gas royalties over their land holdings.

And that is exactly as it should be. As it should be in Australia.

Why should the likes of BHP or anyone else, including State Govts, take advantage of my personal rights and holdings.

I guess I didn't get it previously....until I saw Aboriginal land rights in action.........as well as seeing practices overseas.

There is a line between common good......and exploitation of my rights.

 

"my property is my property". If my land is commodity rich.....I should receive direct benefit. Full stop.

their land is their land"........above and below and to the sky

I think you have been in Texas to long...

1. How far down would you think is acceptable to own under your land?

2. How far down does the US constitute ownership is of?

3. More importantly when you purchased 'your land' (your choice), the crown still owned below the ground. The crown had originally sold without the benefits of underground minerals which the vendors have agreed to pay and if you read the fine print you would of seen this. However now you want the crown to give up something you (or any of the previous owners) haven't paid for because you think it is unfair?

It is like me purchasing a car with no engine and then going back to the car dealership and demanding they give me an engine so I can drive the car. Even though I never paid for it.

Another way might be buying a one of a duplex and then demanding the developer to give me the other one because I assumed I was buying them both and it is unfair.

I really should talk to the REA agent that sold me my house and demand they give me the whole suburb as I thought I was getting the whole suburb even though my contract said ## XXXX Street XXXXX VIC (being the TP of XYZ).

Only people who get upset on these sorts of things are people who didn't educated themselves enough to realize what they were purchasing.

 

The concept of property ownership under common law was "above, below and to the sky".....with the exception of gold and silver because that was deemed as the benchmark for the country's sovereign currency.

Yeap......I totally get and accept Australia's current laws. That doesn't make it right.......or morally acceptable.

Seriously, Aborigines have been able to achieve better rights for themselves than the rest. Because they understood that their land was their land.

That is, the likes of BHP having access to your land.....they should pay you for that right.

Then BHP benefits. You, as a land holder, benefits. Both pay tax. The State benefits..........as well as the broader community. That is, everyone benefits.

I have lived in Texas for just one year.

I have lived in Australia for some 50 years. I know the difference between personal exploitation.........and Govt overreach and corporate BS.

 

So do your millionaire (btw who cares how rich, should I be paying more attention?) employers own part of the Indian ocean? How would you divide Malaysia and Peru and who has the rights? (antipodr - Find the other side of the world!)

RE - Aborigines
I don't see how achieved better rights, before the English invaded they did not worry about deeds/titles and the minerals in the ground. The English came and invaded their land and took from them. You in theory bought stolen goods according to your anology.

Are you wanting the Australian government to invade 'your land' that you paid money for that was originally stolen from the Aborigines, just to then give you a small token of appreciation and an apology in a number of decades later. They can invade you, I am happy to keep what I purchased as is.

If you don't like what you have bought, you can always gift me the property then you have nothing to worry about and I will make sure it doesn't get invaded.

 

My land is my land. Anyone that wants it, pays for it. Full stop.

Seriously, we have generational farmers who have been forced off their land because the State Govt sees $$ royalties and companies can make $B.

And we, as the majority of citizens, don't think or blink.

You are wrong. Most of Australia's legal system still currently operates under UK's common law practices. ........that is until Aussie politicians do otherwise.

I really don't care what you think. I just wish that you would bother to know your history before giving up your rights.........over your Govt and corporation mega giants.

You know that BHP receives greater benefits in Australia than elsewhere else in the world....right? Does that not tell you something?

 

Your land is your land but what is UNDER your land is not yours. You want it you pay for it however I don't think the crown is looking to sell it.

Sorry forgot BHP adds nothing to Australia...

 

You know that BHP is also listed on the NYSE as well as the UK? And they operate in many countries.

BHP adds the same value as any other multi national...and has the same level of care or carelessness.

Adding value to Australia's community is the least of their concerns.

THX attacks me for being a "socialist".

You attack me for Govt and corporations rights being justified above and beyond my own. And who is the "socialist" in this conversation.

Common law is common law. It can be changed with the will of the people. That is the beauty of democracy in law. All you need for it to actually work is for enough people to care. The alternative is you have the equivalent of a communist state where the Govt determines your life and decides for you who should benefit from your own hard labor.

 

How far off topic did this thread get?

I hope the OP got some decent advice before others jumped in and started bickering.