retirement

PeteGill

Well-known member
It is always interesting to see how threads change direction and take on a new persona.. This one has gone from retirement issues and advice to union bashing...
Hopefully it will get back on track sooner rather than later...
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
^ unions can and do have a direct affect on the topic though pete.

the BLF
storemen and packers
painters and dockers
the pilots

all left very bad scars on the Oz economy with their less work more pay,throw down the tools at the drop of a hat attitude and ways.

thank god it's changed,our country would have gone down the gurgler.
 
C

Changone

Guest
justcruzing1;221624 said:
Things have changed, thank God, and instant strikes with unions holding the place to ransom, have gone due, as Dave points out, to new laws and regulations.

Unions initially were needed to protect the workers, then the employeer's needed their own union to protect them from the workers and unions.
These days I think there is a reasonable balance.

I still dislike how unions can force someone to join and pay fees or they are not allowed to work in a set of jobs.

There is no "Initially". Trade Unions are still the only bodies properly equipped to negotiate workers employment awards etc.
Here in WA we just had a case where Employers were made to pay health workers a fair rate that they just would not have done but for the arbitration process.

"No Ticket No start?" I don't think that is such a bad thing if it means peace between Unions and Employers and a lack of friction in the workplace.

An EBA without your Union? I don't think so. Imagine taking this on. You become the thing you are trying to avoid...555

If you do not belong to a union then organize your fellow workers into an ‘employee group’ to contribute to a fund and employ an Industrial Relations Consultant (IRC) to consult with employees in negotiating an agreement. Remember that the cost of employing a IRC is a once only cost and should be weighed against the cost of union membership.

Even if you consider there is only a small amount of workers interested in negotiating an agreement, approach your employer and see if he wishes to negotiate. If your employer refuses to negotiate, your Industrial Relations Consultant or your union can apply to the Fair Work Commission to conduct a poll with all the employees to see if there is a majority who wish to negotiate a new agreement. See: Section 236 Fair Work Act 2009

If the Fair Work Commission determines that there is a majority of employees wishing to negotiate, which is called a Majority Support Determination, your employer by law must ‘negotiate in good faith’



 
P

pooyai

Guest
It might be different in other countries bUt in OZ. Big businesses avoid tax, that is quite clear from the news recently. What about Murdoch getting a billion dollar cheque from the tax office BHP, RIO TINTO the list goes on. The public services unions and whatever they have been able to get away for their members is chicken feed in comparison. Having said that the people that come to the fore in Unions nowadays are often just talking heads, not much substance Bill Shorten for eg. Some of the practices that Dave is talking about will probably get the flick in some shape or form but from the sound of it he is effectively grandfathered. Good luck to him.

If you want to save the Aussie budget look no further than Defence Procurement I know.
 
M

meese

Guest
PeteGill;221625 said:
It is always interesting to see how threads change direction and take on a new persona.. This one has gone from retirement issues and advice to union bashing...
Hopefully it will get back on track sooner rather than later...
most people get a shock when they retire...they always get out far less than they thought they would and most pensions never beat inflation
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
pooyai;221652 said:
It might be different in other countries bUt in OZ. Big businesses avoid tax, that is quite clear from the news recently. What about Murdoch getting a billion dollar cheque from the tax office BHP, RIO TINTO the list goes on. .
in the case of rio tinto they paid $6.2 billion in taxes in Oz last financial year.
 
C

Changone

Guest
That figure sounds impressive until you discover it includes mining royalties.
Rio Tinto and BHP are being audited by the tax office for avoiding company income tax.
A more honest figure would be one not including unrelated mining royalties.
Interesting how the "Big Australian" (BHP) now pays dividends denominated in US dollars.
Nothing to do with avoiding tax of course....555
 
M

meese

Guest
we all try and avoid paying....its much easier for those of us that are not salary men...there are plenty of legal loopholes ...there is a big difference between tax avoidance and not paying tax ...
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
probably should also mention many "millionaires" live off franked dividends which means the tax is paid before they get theirs.
 
C

Changone

Guest
With franked dividends, all that happens is 30% tax is remitted to the tax office and then credited against the tax returns of the shareholders, preventing "Double taxation". It's not company tax which is payable at the rate of 30% on company tax profits.

Rio Tinto lifted 209 million tonnes of iron ore out of Australia in 2013.
They would have sold it for $140 a tonne back then, that's A$29.2billion
Even at today's iron ore prices closer to $50 a tonne in 2014 they have lifted a record 266 million tonnes.
They still insist the business is profitable even at that level due to relative efficiency.
Do the math on 2013 using that knowledge and work out the tax you think they might be paying in a fair world.
 

jontymate

Active member
Changone;221732 said:
With franked dividends, all that happens is 30% tax is remitted to the tax office and then credited against the tax returns of the shareholders, preventing "Double taxation". It's not company tax which is payable at the rate of 30% on company tax profits.

Rio Tinto lifted 209 million tonnes of iron ore out of Australia in 2013.
They would have sold it for $140 a tonne back then, that's A$29.2billion
Even at today's iron ore prices closer to $50 a tonne in 2014 they have lifted a record 266 million tonnes.
They still insist the business is profitable even at that level due to relative efficiency.
Do the math on 2013 using that knowledge and work out the tax you think they might be paying in a fair world.
I think it is wrong to lift more tonnes at a lower price and BHP is the same. (We all own that asset). And want the maximum revenue from it. What would OPEC do? To me it smells of Upper management incentives for more tonnes and efficiency gains than true profitability.
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
$6.2 bill is still $6.2 bill into the Govt coffers though C1...no matter what label you put on it.

commodity prices are cyclical and the lows and boom time prices will average out in the middle there somewhere.
to close down in times when it's low and start up again when prices start to go up is less efficient and costs many jobs and cash flow.

hopefully this low is nearly over but i wouldn't be betting money on it!!
 

jontymate

Active member
Moo Uaon;221736 said:
$6.2 bill is still $6.2 bill into the Govt coffers though C1...no matter what label you put on it.

commodity prices are cyclical and the lows and boom time prices will average out in the middle there somewhere.
to close down in times when it's low and start up again when prices start to go up is less efficient and costs many jobs and cash flow.

hopefully this low is nearly over but i wouldn't be betting money on it!!
I watch metal prices daily as it is important to me. The projected housing boom(China) requiring the majority of the forecasted steel is gone. Chinese would invest in a unit and it would double in price in a few years. There are now many ghost towns and the market is saturated and the returns are not there.
 
C

Changone

Guest
Moo Uaon;221736 said:
$6.2 bill is still $6.2 bill into the Govt coffers though C1...no matter what label you put on it.

commodity prices are cyclical and the lows and boom time prices will average out in the middle there somewhere.
to close down in times when it's low and start up again when prices start to go up is less efficient and costs many jobs and cash flow.

hopefully this low is nearly over but i wouldn't be betting money on it!!
I don't think the West Australian Government would agree with you when their forward budget is in tatters as a direct result of falling Iron ore prices. They are even having to offer the junior miners a 50% discount on royalties to keep them afloat. The big boys meanwhile seem to be carrying on regardless. There is a real argument for some control over the national assets and how much the multinationals can extract at what to them is simply a lower cost.
 

obes

Well-known member
We shoulda bit the bullet 30 years ago and said - fcuk you, we're not selling iron ore, we're selling steel.

Simplistic for sure, but once the multi's move in and start divvying up your raw assets - you're nackered.. They strip it to the bone and milk it until its dry.

Ah privatisation...........Fcuk the value adding in foreign countries.
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
Changone;221740 said:
I don't think the West Australian Government would agree with you when their forward budget is in tatters as a direct result of falling Iron ore prices..
mining company or bean counter error? :)
 
C

Changone

Guest
^More like the pollies who believed in the mining boom that would never end.
 

Moo Uaon

Well-known member
^ in context though C1.

growth in china has slumped to a miserable (reported) 7% or thereabouts?
nowhere near the 12-13% of boom times....but?

i gotta say that the great lives us Aussie baby boomers and gen y's have enjoyed is largely due to the mining industry over the last few decades!!

it irritates me to hear people who have led a charmed life in Oz (not talking about you C1) yet want to talk it down/change it because they think it's evil.
just think about the kids and the opportunity you'd deny them if you were to close it down!!
 

Nomad

Well-known member
jontymate;221735 said:
I think it is wrong to lift more tonnes at a lower price and BHP is the same. (We all own that asset). And want the maximum revenue from it. What would OPEC do? To me it smells of Upper management incentives for more tonnes and efficiency gains than true profitability.
Whilst I have not looked at this deeply, my understanding is that there is a similar dynamic at play here as to what is happening in oil.

That is, the low price puts everyone out of business except the very largest. If the majors maintain the low price for long enough, then everyone else closes down, and it is costly and time consuming to get started again. Once this objective is achieved, the price and volumes will return to more sustainable levels, yet with minimal competition, thus more profitable outcome over the long run. The similarity with oil relates to pulling the rug out from under the cheap US alternatives to crude oil.
 
Top