The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[Joshuatheeel]

Nothing wrong with increasing taxes, just depends how the extra money is spent ( and of course don't increase to much that it encourages businesses/people to stop spending/hiring).

 

[phantom eel]

That's right, taxes equals much needed infrastructure and services (health, transport, education). I'd much rather invest in these via paying taxes to the government than user-pay to some for-profit business for the same things....

That way the services and infrastructure are there for other people into the future even if I don't need them, people like kids and grandkids etc.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Horse shit Pull up the annual report of any tax-paying company you like. On the income statement (statement of financial performance), just above the bottom line you'll see 'less Income Tax Expense', then 'Net Profit after Tax'.

It's an expense/cost whichever way you look at it.....track your cash flow if unconvinced.

Sad but true. Businesses exist to make profit, not to fund government expenditure.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

I never said it wasn't an expense... I just said that it doesn't add to the cost of (doing) business, it simply takes away from the profits. The fact it's listed just above the bottom line supports my point.

Higher taxes only equals higher prices if a business is hell bent on delivering a set level of profit (usually increasing annually) for its owner or shareholders - rather than cater to the intricacies of the market at a given point in time.

My point was simply that Pou's simplistic formula has as much depth as a soundbyte slogan like "stop the boats".

Yeah, most business owners I know are just in it for shits and giggles. Making a return on investment doesn't evrn come into consideration :crazy:

 

[84 Baby]

I never said it wasn't an expense... I just said that it doesn't add to the cost of (doing) business, it simply takes away from the profits. The fact it's listed just above the bottom line supports my point.

You do realise that is exactly what a cost of business is? Something that detracts from profit.

The reason why it is listed right at the end is because it is contingent on everything else above it

 

[Delboy]

Delboy just spat his coffee all over his computer screen. :lol:

#DebtandDefecitDisaster

Gronk, I had to break bread with Glenn Stevens of the RBA previously a fair bit at meetings, he is a very left centric economist. He has this week lectured the govt on the massive issue of debt and borrowings that were left by the last govt and its unsustainability and damage to our future and economic wellbeing

Who would have thought!!!!

 

[lingard]

Yeah, most business owners I know are just in it for shits and giggles. Making a return on investment doesn't evrn come into consideration :crazy:

It truly is a wonderful world!

 

[phantom eel]

You do realise that is exactly what a cost of business is? Something that detracts from profit.

The reason why it is listed right at the end is because it is contingent on everything else above it

I would say it's a cost to business, rather than a cost of (doing) business. There's a slight difference. It detracts from profit, but it's not a cost of the actual business itself (which is why it's listed seperately at the end, rather than in the expenditure - the costs of business).

Sure, tax is an additional cost/detraction from (potential) profit, but is still listed at the end even when a business fails to make an operating profit. Go figure?

 

[The Elephant In The room]

I would say it's a cost to business, rather than a cost of (doing) business. There's a slight difference. It detracts from profit, but it's not a cost of the actual business itself (which is why it's listed seperately at the end, rather than in the expenditure - the costs of business).

Sure, tax is an additional cost/detraction from (potential) profit, but is still listed at the end even when a business fails to make an operating profit. Go figure?

You obviously don't realise that there can be a vast difference between profit for accounting purposes & profit for tax purposes. Lots of expenses (for accounting purposes) aren't considered tax deductions, and vice versa.

Anything that is required to be paid and reduces the return to investors is a cost of business

 

[Gronk]

This morning on morning TV, Albo & Christopher Pyne sat with Karl having their weekly Friday chat.

Concluding, Albo said to Pyne "See you next week with a new leader".

Pyne said back to him : "Cee U Next Tuesday"

Well played.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

This morning on morning TV, Albo & Christopher Pyne sat with Karl having their weekly Friday chat.

Concluding, Albo said to Pyne "See you next week with a new leader".

Pyne said back to him : "Cee U Next Tuesday"

Well played.

:lol:

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You obviously don't realise that there can be a vast difference between profit for accounting purposes & profit for tax purposes. Lots of expenses (for accounting purposes) aren't considered tax deductions, and vice versa.

Anything that is required to be paid and reduces the return to investors is a cost of business

In Phantom's defence, the one difference b/w tax expense and most others is that it is only chargeable on positive (tax) profits. In some respects, it is like the ATO having a silent equity interest in your business. There is a concept used by analysts and others of the 'cost of doing business', which is often applied when evaluating a retail business, and includes the sum of necessary overheads (rent/lease expense, fixed admin etc), and this is one case where you wouldn't look at taxes.

But in the bigger picture, a firm is worth the discounted value of the free cash that it generates that can be distributed to shareholders......and tax sure as hell reduces that amount and thus the amount any sensible investor is willing to pay.

 

[carson]

In Phantom's defence, the one difference b/w tax expense and most others is that it is only chargeable on positive (tax) profits. In some respects, it is like the ATO having a silent equity interest in your business. There is a concept used by analysts and others of the 'cost of doing business', which is often applied when evaluating a retail business, and includes the sum of necessary overheads (rent/lease expense, fixed admin etc), and this is one case where you wouldn't look at taxes.

But in the bigger picture, a firm is worth the discounted value of the free cash that it generates that can be distributed to shareholders......and tax sure as hell reduces that amount and thus the amount any sensible investor is willing to pay.

The tax paid by the company is not lost money. The tax is distributed to the shareholders as franking credits and the income shown in the shareholders returns is grossed up again to the original before tax figures under the imputation credit system. Depending on the tax structures involved some of this tax can be returned to the shareholders or used to offset personal tax. A lot of blue chip companies are held by superfunds where, depending on the structure part or all of the tax may be returned to the superfund.

Of course shares held by individuals may also result in top up tax being paid.

For the company it is a cost to business as it effects the working capital.

When budgeting for a company, tax is obviously allowed for and the price of goods and services are set to maximise returns to shareholders while retaining enough working capital in order to continue to trade.

 

[Gronk]

So it's on next Tuesday. I have no idea how it will end up. The only way that Turnbull will get the numbers is if he bends over to the old cronies in the LNP and agrees to leave climate change and gay marriage alone.

IF Abbott survives, he better win by a big margin, otherwise instability will haunt him for the rest of his term.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The tax paid by the company is not lost money. The tax is distributed to the shareholders as franking credits and the income shown in the shareholders returns is grossed up again to the original before tax figures under the imputation credit system. Depending on the tax structures involved some of this tax can be returned to the shareholders or used to offset personal tax. A lot of blue chip companies are held by superfunds where, depending on the structure part or all of the tax may be returned to the superfund.

Of course shares held by individuals may also result in top up tax being paid.

For the company it is a cost to business as it effects the working capital.

When budgeting for a company, tax is obviously allowed for and the price of goods and services are set to maximise returns to shareholders while retaining enough working capital in order to continue to trade.

???? I agree. I didn't suggest that it was lost money. Just suggesting that tax outflows don't cause the same bankruptcy risk as high fixed charges resulting from financial or operating leverage.

 

[84 Baby]

I would say it's a cost to business, rather than a cost of (doing) business. There's a slight difference. It detracts from profit, but it's not a cost of the actual business itself (which is why it's listed seperately at the end, rather than in the expenditure - the costs of business).

Sure, tax is an additional cost/detraction from (potential) profit, but is still listed at the end even when a business fails to make an operating profit. Go figure?

Go figure what? If it's not a cost of (doing) business but is a cost to business then if the business stopped operating for a tax year then the business would have to still pay tax? As I said previously it is an expense to businesses contingent to the rest of the business financials. It is resources going out in the operation of a business which is the definition of an expense. No business in their right mind is going to classify it as an asset because it helps the government build new infrastructure that may assist the business in the future

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Tax paid isn't the only increased cost to business. Operating in a high tax environment means every other business cost is generally more expensive too.

 

[Gronk]

Abbott's minister from the inner sanctum Kevin Andrews just said "I believe the team of Tony Abbott & Julia Gillard is the best leadership team for the Liberal Party".

Delboy just ran off the road.

 

[Suitman]

Abbott's minister from the inner sanctum Kevin Andrews just said "I believe the team of Tony Abbott & Julia Gillard is the best leadership team for the Liberal Party".

Delboy just ran off the road.

.....and these people are running our country. God forbid.

Suity.

 

[strider]

haha ... don't you boys let em get away with it