Another article regarding Centrelink’s disgusting behaviour.
1 Like
Centrelink stupidity strikes again
What a pity that the Centrelink employees do not have their pay reduced until they can prove that they actually earned it.
1 Like
I’d say many of these debts are system generated ie Robodebt. The system glitch wipes the income data then the system applies the income test based on maximums (because no data was supplied the system thinks) thus a debt is raised. Then the affected family has to go through the hoops to re-present the data so a person can work out there is no overpayment. Not so much an employee fault as an issue that the Govt is not requiring the fault to be fixed post haste.
3 Likes
The Government halts part of the Centrelink robodebt scam.
1 Like
Is part of the problem how Centrelink make the methodology in the initial assessments and subsequent reviews of entitlements invisible to the outside world?
It would be useful if in doing so, Centrelink provided a detailed worksheet of how they made their calculations, in assessing assets and income for the respective tests. This might provide some form of evidence as to the reliability of the procedure and an opportunity for the victims, oops customers to review the system for errors or mistakes. While many customers may not be able to fully understand the workings, it would provide a useful reference, and opportunity for a third party to check if requested.
What is so secret about the methodology behind the final amount determined for payments, or calculation leading to rejection?
Because my partner has a pension entitlement, while I do not, I still get dragged into the system. Once best endeavours have been made to provide all that is asked, it is a one way street with how that is processed. An answer may or may not be provided in the fullness of time.
1 Like
A question that every LNP MP should be asked is in the face of the evidence, why did it take this government so long to acknowledge there is a problem and act on it?
A core pollie tenet is never admit one is wrong and never apologise. Did they acknowledge a problem at all, or just put their heads down?
1 Like
Ex MP and Minister Christopher Pyne was asked that question on the ABC, The Drum - Tuesday, 19th Nov 2019. I think he referred to it as a mistake?
There was more said. Best to make your own assessment. (Edit, towards the end of the hour long program.)
Available on iView for the next few weeks.
1 Like
And whilst Centrelink’s disgusting robo-debt scam has been destroying the lives of some of the most vulnerable members of the population, this ship of fools remained oblivious of the real scams.
1 Like
An article regarding Amazon paying virtually no tax in Australia.
I was wondering what topic to post it under but none seemed more appropiate than the title of this one.
1 Like
The ABC again not knowing the difference between profit and revenue (even though they hinted to the fast in the article - but using the profit doesn’t make a good news story).
While I have no interest in defending Amazon, its business model is also different to many others where most products are on consignment from retailers, manufacturers or distributor and Amazon charges fees for providing the platform for selling the items.
While the sales revenue may be $1B, their income from the platform in Australia may be significantly less. Their profit will be based on the income they have generated not total sales revenue as much of the sales revenue will be going to other retailers, manufacturers or distributor.
It would to good to know what their total income from there Australian businesses are rather than the revenue passing through their operations. This income and subsequent profit (only considering costs directly from Australian operations such as labour, product purchase costs where Amazon owns the inventory, holding costs/warehouse rental, electricity etc) would be a far better measure.
Maybe the government could change the tax laws making it mandatory for any multinational business to include incomes, Australian operations running costs and parent company (foreign entity) charges on Australian operations. This would give a better picture of what is happening.
4 Likes
For large multinationals I think they already have.
However as you commented Amazon is a bit different from a pure digital play because Amazon has actual physical product (well, for a lot of stuff that they sell) and that comes with real world costs that can’t be avoided.
2 Likes
You stated it well. The requisite accountancy skills are to move the costs where it does most good, and move the revenue where it does most good, to minimise the taxes paid.
A contrived example - costs and enough revenue to cover them are attributed to Australia but ‘excess revenue’ (aka profits) get attributed to a low taxing jurisdiction such as Ireland through various mechanisations. Win for Amazon, win for Ireland, but Australia?
2 Likes
I think maybe you are misunderstanding the post by @phb.
Of course you are right. It happens. Creative accounting happens. However the onus is on you to demonstrate that that applies in this particular case. The tricks that pure digital plays (e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Google) and that, for example, Apple use are not so readily available to Amazon for the physical goods that it sells.
I think it needs restating:
The media in Australia are recklessly ignorant of basic accounting.
1 Like
Amazon Australia Commercial Services for 2018 reported only revenue of $292.3 million.
From the article @Fred123 links to it is more than this but the inference is income is shifted offshore so it appears to bring the apparent revenue stream vastly down:
"ABC News can reveal that, in Australia, Amazon’s three local entities had combined revenues of more than $1 billion but a combined tax bill of just over $20 million in 2018.
While corporate tax is based on profits, not revenue, governments globally are currently trying to crack down on tech giants shifting income offshore"
1 Like
The ABC has shown itself to be so ignorant in the past about this kind of thing that unless they can link to source documents to support their claims of “$292.3 million” and “more than $1 billion”, I just wouldn’t put much store in it.
Anyway, there’s a simple test. Complain to the ATO. If the ATO is happy with Amazon Australia’s tax affairs then you should be.
2 Likes
The $293 million was from Amazon’s Financial statements lodged with ASIC. That figure has been much more widely reported than by just the ABC. As have the other income streams from Amazon’s Australian arms.
@person
Should I be happy with their tax affairs when many companies also use similar tactics as offshore income shifting? It may not be something I can do much about but that is different to being satisfied with it. Certainly it is something I have raised with my Federal member about income shifting just not about specific businesses but as an overall concern.
I have contacted the ABC journalist who produced the article so hopefully they will respond with more adequate detail of the figure that was stated. They even may be able to respond on here about it.
Response from the ABC article author:
"It is correct based on financial accounts. If there is other Australian revenue they are not declaring in their accounts, then please let me know!
From: Nassim Khadem
Sent: Thursday, 21 November 2019 2:11 PM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: The $1 Billion revenue
You would need to obtain their financial accounts from ASIC for all three entities and do the sums. It is correct."
1 Like
Media articles like this make things harder to understand, not easier. For the love of $#@ just show me the accounts! I assume that they have paid to download them from ASIC (or from one of ASIC’s resellers). Just link me to the results. The accounts can show further breakdown of large totals like “general and administrative expenses”.
Here’s my take:
A Com S: $292.3 m revenue
A W S: $306 m revenue
A Cor S: $490 m revenue
Total $1088.3 m revenue i.e. “more than $1 billion”
All figures relate solely to Australian operations.
I can’t see how you got this. I see no discrepancy in the revenue numbers.
I think you might be mistaken about this.
Are there some amber flags there with transfer pricing and thin capitalisation issues and related party transations? Yes. Does that mean that there is necessarily anything dodgy there? No.
The ATO has the legal authority and expertise to get to the bottom of it. I don’t. The ABC doesn’t.
As an example, A Com S has an obvious need to operate a massive web site. Is it reasonable for them to source that from A W S? Yes. Is the AWS underlying cloud system located overseas and hence the costs to operate it are overseas? Yes.
Is the Australian government responsible for some of the reasons why a company might choose to locate its cloud systems outside Australia? Yes.
One comment on the ABC article:
While big changes to the global tax system are coming, Mr Ward said there would be a fight between countries over how to fairly distribute the revenue.
This is the stumbling block to an OECD-wide agreement. To some extent, this is a zero sum game. Some of the tax that Australia could claw in, would be at the expense of some other country.
2 Likes
As I noted using legal loopholes is possibly a reason why they are able to operate the way they do. I am not saying I have the expertise nor do I sometimes think the ATO has it or even perhaps the real desire to do it. Often legislation can be framed in a way to allow these loopholes to exist. There is obvious lobbying to conduct favouring of some businesses and persons when it comes to many matters Tax among them. Amazon Australia said from it’s operation reports to ASIC that they had a revenue stream of $293 million…that’s what they paid the tax on. The rest is possibly shifted from our shores to benefit from low taxes eg Delaware (low tax State in the US where Amazon is incorporated). Legal currently yes indeed, should it be well I think perhaps largely no.
1 Like
Where precisely are you getting this from?
I suppose that AEC disclosures would shed light on whether any part of Amazon has donated more than $14,000 to any political party. (Hands up everyone who thinks that $14,000 is a little too high as a disclosure threshold.)
Nah, the US isn’t happy either (as stated in the article). The real profit is being made in, and hence tax being paid in, Luxembourg.
1 Like
Menwhile, Centrelink stupidity strikes again.
Is there nothing that this ship of fools cannot screw up?
1 Like
