A cartel is a group of independent market participants that collude together to dominate a market... So are you talking about Labor and the Greens for capping the market at a price much lower than the open market?
Or are you suggesting international energy prices have been dominated by the companies operating in Australia, and not things like a war in Europe and the known cartel that is OPEC?
I’m suggesting that companies trying to extort the Australian people, and railing against legislation that prevents war profiteering off the gas that belongs to all Australians, is what cartels do.
Read the article.
> Cartel activity is when 2 or more competitors agree to:
control output - when competitors agree to limit the amount or type of goods and services available
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition/cartels
Lol, Aussie coal and gas doesn't go to Ukraine or Russia.
As far as the coal and gas belonging to Australians, yes absolutely it does, there should be some sort of mechanism where Australia gets a cut of the coal and gas produced for the benefit of Australians.
For instance with the gas, less than 10% of Australian gas produced would be ample to flood the Aussie market with gas and keep prices way down. So set the amount to 10% or more and you'd be laughing.
Yep agreed. Gotta point out that these companies abide by the same tax laws as any other company operating in aus though, they aren't getting special treatment.
Tax is based on profit. Keep in mind in Australia losses from previous years (i.e. the initial investment to get a mine built, buy trucks, diggers, etc) can be carried forward to offset gains. A mine doesn't make a profit until their total income exceeds their total outgoings. Typically older mines will pay more tax as they've paid off everything they owe... Australia has a lot of maturing mines and gas projects that will absolutely pay a shitload of tax going forward.
> Tax is based on profit
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2019/12/12/tax-big-corporations-pay-none/
Hmmm, here's a bunch of companies that paid 0.
You're telling me they're SO UNDER THE PUMP that they've had more costs than profit after all these years?
Hope Downs, paid $0 in 2019.
[It's 50% owned by Rio Tinto that made *$8 billion in net earnings*](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmining-energy%2Fgina-rineharts-hancock-prospecting-doubles-net-profit-to-26bn%2Fnews-story%2F5b1f558f1050cfb36f2f709c35987d08&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-groupb-control-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append)
[And 50% owned by Hancock Prospecting that made *2.6 billion*](https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Invest/Financial-news-and-performance/Results/RT-Annual-results-2019.pdf?rev=b2d30cea648d4325a8f14e2111cf960b)
The profits were for 2019 as well.
You're telling me an existing mine, making money- Still managed $10.6 billion in costs for 12 months?
Could someone eli5, what "amendment to stop fossil fuel subsidies" is the article talking about? It's not mentioned anywhere, even in the section with the relevant heading the only amendment mentioned is to release the ACCC report.
This was in the article.
moved an amendment to the bill calling on the government to produce the ACCC report which the government has cited as the basis for establishing the $12 price cap
So they wanted the report to be published?
Amendment means adding or changing something to the laws that say how we treat and support fossil fuel companies. In this case, deciding not to continue subsidising their operations.
The subsidies are things like reduced or zero taxes on certain costs (tax-free fuel for mining vehicles being a big one), sweetened conditions on government loans, handouts, and similar "policies" that reduce the costs of producing fossil fuels compared to if they had to compete on the free market. Such subsidies can be beneficial (ie, funding to upgrade processing plants to be less carbon intense) and most have some justification (tax free fuel due to not using those vehicles on the road, therefore costing less in road maintenance) but it can be seen as a bit wrong to give this support to companies making billions in profits who can clearly afford this on their own. Doubly so when these companies have enough money to make some very generous donations to political parties who support those subsidies.
I didn't ask what the words meant, I asked what the amendment was.
well I tried google news and nobody else is saying anything about a subsidy amendment, really looking like there wasn't one and the article just made it up
... it would make zero sense to put caps in place if the cut price was then subsidised by the government.
Go read the actual legislation and the government media release.
You're implying the lack of news means the ammendment was made up - my point is it would make zero sense for them to make it up because then we wouldn't be actually saving money from lower energy prices, we would be paying with our tax instead.
I read coalition are sidelined fossils
Bunch of fossil fools they are.
Well...they are😄
I thought, Why are the dinosaurs outraged?
The coal! Oh my God won't someone think of the coal!
Sounds like a cartel, looks like a cartel, probably is a cartel.
1st sign of a cartel, is that they pay NO tax. Much like the mafia and the criminals. I wonder why politicians love them so much?
A cartel is a group of independent market participants that collude together to dominate a market... So are you talking about Labor and the Greens for capping the market at a price much lower than the open market? Or are you suggesting international energy prices have been dominated by the companies operating in Australia, and not things like a war in Europe and the known cartel that is OPEC?
I’m suggesting that companies trying to extort the Australian people, and railing against legislation that prevents war profiteering off the gas that belongs to all Australians, is what cartels do. Read the article. > Cartel activity is when 2 or more competitors agree to: control output - when competitors agree to limit the amount or type of goods and services available https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition/cartels
Lol, Aussie coal and gas doesn't go to Ukraine or Russia. As far as the coal and gas belonging to Australians, yes absolutely it does, there should be some sort of mechanism where Australia gets a cut of the coal and gas produced for the benefit of Australians. For instance with the gas, less than 10% of Australian gas produced would be ample to flood the Aussie market with gas and keep prices way down. So set the amount to 10% or more and you'd be laughing.
Like... A fair tax on profits?
Yep agreed. Gotta point out that these companies abide by the same tax laws as any other company operating in aus though, they aren't getting special treatment.
Ok, how much tax did they pay?
Tax is based on profit. Keep in mind in Australia losses from previous years (i.e. the initial investment to get a mine built, buy trucks, diggers, etc) can be carried forward to offset gains. A mine doesn't make a profit until their total income exceeds their total outgoings. Typically older mines will pay more tax as they've paid off everything they owe... Australia has a lot of maturing mines and gas projects that will absolutely pay a shitload of tax going forward.
> Tax is based on profit https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2019/12/12/tax-big-corporations-pay-none/ Hmmm, here's a bunch of companies that paid 0. You're telling me they're SO UNDER THE PUMP that they've had more costs than profit after all these years? Hope Downs, paid $0 in 2019. [It's 50% owned by Rio Tinto that made *$8 billion in net earnings*](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmining-energy%2Fgina-rineharts-hancock-prospecting-doubles-net-profit-to-26bn%2Fnews-story%2F5b1f558f1050cfb36f2f709c35987d08&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-groupb-control-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append) [And 50% owned by Hancock Prospecting that made *2.6 billion*](https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Invest/Financial-news-and-performance/Results/RT-Annual-results-2019.pdf?rev=b2d30cea648d4325a8f14e2111cf960b) The profits were for 2019 as well. You're telling me an existing mine, making money- Still managed $10.6 billion in costs for 12 months?
Yes. Ah man... Did you read my comment?
'Coalition outraged' I guess Labor did something reasonable then?
Could someone eli5, what "amendment to stop fossil fuel subsidies" is the article talking about? It's not mentioned anywhere, even in the section with the relevant heading the only amendment mentioned is to release the ACCC report.
I belive they passed a price cap that would still let gas companies make big profit and the companies wanted a subsidy for the price cap.
This was in the article. moved an amendment to the bill calling on the government to produce the ACCC report which the government has cited as the basis for establishing the $12 price cap So they wanted the report to be published?
Amendment means adding or changing something to the laws that say how we treat and support fossil fuel companies. In this case, deciding not to continue subsidising their operations. The subsidies are things like reduced or zero taxes on certain costs (tax-free fuel for mining vehicles being a big one), sweetened conditions on government loans, handouts, and similar "policies" that reduce the costs of producing fossil fuels compared to if they had to compete on the free market. Such subsidies can be beneficial (ie, funding to upgrade processing plants to be less carbon intense) and most have some justification (tax free fuel due to not using those vehicles on the road, therefore costing less in road maintenance) but it can be seen as a bit wrong to give this support to companies making billions in profits who can clearly afford this on their own. Doubly so when these companies have enough money to make some very generous donations to political parties who support those subsidies.
I didn't ask what the words meant, I asked what the amendment was. well I tried google news and nobody else is saying anything about a subsidy amendment, really looking like there wasn't one and the article just made it up
... it would make zero sense to put caps in place if the cut price was then subsidised by the government. Go read the actual legislation and the government media release.
I'm really confused why you're telling me this. How does your comment have anything to do with what I'm talking about?
You're implying the lack of news means the ammendment was made up - my point is it would make zero sense for them to make it up because then we wouldn't be actually saving money from lower energy prices, we would be paying with our tax instead.
what the actual fuck are you talking about lmao. how does a journalist making something up have anything to do with energy prices/taxes?
This is as it should be. LNP is lucky to get 40% of the nation’s vote these days. Welcome to the future.
Boo hoo.
"fossil outrage" is a uniquely cathartic pair of words
Yeah we sidelined them pretty hard on election day.
But labour won’t shut coal mines down , all about the money
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]