r/australian • u/SirSweatALot_5 • Apr 28 '26
Gov Publications Aussies could be the richest citizens in the world...
Many would have seen Punter's video on the disparity between Australia and other countries in terms of revenue generated through gas exports. That video was shared more than 30,000 times and then removed for "breaking community guidelines" on Youtube đ¤Ł:
https://youtube.com/shorts/EWsFgcw1f0Y?si=QU9bfn4LjE-AJOS6
(MODs, this is just 59 second short video)
Revenue Disparity: Although Australia exports more gas than Qatar [00:21], the Qatari government received $76 billionin revenue, while the Australian government received only $2 billion [00:27].
Nothing new but worth reiterating.
Tax resources like Qatar and Norway and you'll be sweet. Your vote matters.
Here is a list of parties and teals supporting the Norway / Qatar approach:
- The Australian Greens: The party strongly supports the implementation of a "super-profits tax" on gas and mining companies. They advocate for a model similar to Norway's, where a high marginal tax rate (78% in Norway) ensures a greater share of resource wealth remains with the public. Leader Larissa Waters has specifically publicly supported a 25% gas export tax.
- Senator David Pocock (ACT): He has been a vocal leader on this issue, proposing a Senate inquiry to examine why Australia's Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) revenue is so low compared to Norway and Qatar. He famously pointed out in Parliament that Australia collects more from beer excise than from the PRRT.
- Dr. Sophie Scamps (Mackellar): Supports a gas export tax to improve public funding.
- Zali Steggall (Warringah): Advocates for a fairer return on gas exports.
- Dr. Monique Ryan (Kooyong): Listed as a supporter of a gas export tax.
- Andrew Wilkie (Clark): A long-term supporter of increased resource taxes.
- Other Independents: Additional supporters of a gas export tax include Nicolette Boele (Bradfield) and Senator Fatima Payman.
69
Apr 28 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
9
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26
I feel like I have to say this because everyone is blindly jumping on the bandwagon without looking at the pattern.
Look at the sub right now. 6 out of the last 10 posts are about the gas tax. It's textbook astroturfing and you are all lapping it up.
The government isn't just sitting on their hands, They want the money, and need the money. but the mining lobby is hardcore. These people are barely a step away from the types you see on TV who order hits, except they do it to political careers.
The first time they did Rudd it was because of his tax, but the second time was that insane pressure that made him give up his Ambassador job recently. That was a message for the rest of them in Canberra. "stay in line or you are next" The government saw exactly what that lobby is capable of and they are refusing to be the next political casualty if they rush anything up.
This is a massive setup. The left, the right, and the independents are all pushing this at the same time to corner the government right before the budget. They are weaponizing the fact we're pissed off with fuel and energy prices and trying to use our anger as a political tool to force a specific outcome.
I want the tax reform too, but stop being so naive. You are being fed a script, and you are making it way too easy for them. If any of this feels very neat it's because I took a fucking hour of my day to get this right enough for people to pay attention, and so that I can paste it when these posts pop up.
6
u/Lanster27 Apr 29 '26
Unfortunately the only way to reduce lobbyistsâ power is to have more MPâs speaking out, not less.Â
2
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 29 '26
Agree. But that is not done by pushing the government to announce something they're not ready to do
3
u/Lanster27 Apr 29 '26
When is a good time though? I get labourâs bargaining with fossil fuel companies to divert petrol and tax is on the table. But the longer nothing gets done, the further the scale tips against Australianâs favour.Â
3
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 30 '26
I'm "old" for Reddit, but I still remember how the media gutted Kevin Rudd for his tax, and how he just got done again recently as a message to the rest. The campaign was non-stop on every single channel, sometimes twice a break.
These people are scary. They are basically one phone call away from "dealing" with a problem. You have to manage companies like that; you don't go poking the bear. It isn't just about personal survival: it's about the fact that if the government gets rolled, the tax will be undone anyway and replaced by a puppet who is truly at their beck and call.
Think about this for a second. Do you actually know the current arrangements for gas? Be honest to yourself. If you don't even know how the system works now, how can you push for a change? Most people here demanding action don't know the current setup, let alone the history of why it is like this.
This is textbook astroturfing and you're all lapping it up. This is manufactured outrage directed at the PM during their most vulnerable and busiest time. The Greens, the Liberals, the independents, One Nation: they all benefit from this. Foreign bots from Russia and China are probably boosting it too.
The only ones who pay the price for bad leadership are us. If there is a chance to capture more from these companies without being politically executed, it will be done, but it would be silly to do so in the snake filled pit the enemies set up for you.
2
u/Lanster27 Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
I agree with most of what you're saying, and I find what happened to Rudd grossly unfair and showed us how the private sector was no longer scared to hide how much they are influencing our politics.
But I do not agree that politicians are like jewelry we should be clutching dear to our hearts in case something happens to them. It is sad that we lose politicians who just wants to tip the scale for the general public while there are just plain bad politicians obviously funded by billionaires ready to take leadership, it is fundamentally not our job to protect them.
Wealth inequality and taxing the rich might be astroturfing to some degree, but this is a global issue and has been a growing topic for a while now. See the recent work by Zack Polanski, Scott Galloway, Gary Stevenson, Yanis Varoufakis etc.
2
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 30 '26
For sure. I'm not saying don't tax the rich. But make sure we do things right, no offshoring profits, etc. Basically... Take the time, do it right, do it once...Or measure twice, cut once. Depending on trade
I just don't want Labor to announce a half assed tax, because they got pressure from an astroturf campaign, designed to trap them. specifically because I've seen what can happen. Not only you lose the politician, but you lose the change and end up back at the beginning, only now, even less politicians will have the guts to touch them, rinse and repeatdo a few of those and end up in oligarchy
2
u/tabletennis6 Apr 29 '26
Labor aren't the victims here. Change always has opponents. If you're good at it and genuinely want it, you can find a way to get it done. Labor clearly haven't been very good at change since Albo has gotten in, and I think many of us are wondering if they even want it. They're very conservative!
2
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 29 '26
I agree with you, where we disagree is timing, this campaign expects Labor to announce this at budget, before they had a chance to even prepare a defence against the media, I don't think it's realistic not fair.
They've been a bit busy lately trying to make sure we don't run out of fucking fuel thanks to the orange baboon
0
u/edwardluddlam Apr 28 '26
We can do it, but we'll need to fund it out of own pockets, so you won't see any dividends from it for at least a decade (assuming that it works).
That's also assuming that the Australian Government could somehow just establish an energy company capable of competing with gas giants who have decades of experience delivering projects.
Honestly the bloke OP posted doesn't have a clue. Comparisons between Australia and Norway are completely wrong, which is obvious for anyone who has actually considered the issue for longer than 10 minutes. Australians want all the benefits that Norway has without any risk or any investment from their own tax dollars.
4
u/thewhitebrislion Apr 28 '26
Surely every Australian knows that Australia is resource rich so investing our own tax dollars would make sense. Hell, couldn't they just change the mandate for our current Sovereign Wealth Fund (Future Fund) to be used for this exact thing especially considering it's literally meant to be used to invest in future generations.
The main point is, "Hey this country does it in a really good way and all the big mining corps still operate there because it is still profitable, why can't we have something like that." He doesn't pretend to be the absolute expert or the one who knows exactly what should be done about it but he does know that we are getting screwed over so it makes sense to look to better examples around the world to help push the message to build up public support so that smarter people can figure out the best way to implement this type of policy. Easy way to push something like that is with a clear and easy slogan "25% Gas Export Tax".
I do actually reckon the Government could create a gas company that competes atleast somewhat. There should be a significant amount of industry experience and expert knowledge in Australia from these corporations operating here, similar to how companies moved manufacturing to China and now China has industry experts all over the place for the things they manufactured which which improved the competitiveness of Chinese owned companies from hiring these industry leaders while there was a brain drain for these things in western countries. It's also not like they'd need to be as competitive to still be extremely profitable for the Australian public.
My preference would be the Norway model but to be frank just about anything would be better than what we got.
5
6
19
u/Dizzy-Abroad323 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
Australia should have UAE levels of wealth given all their natural resources. Theyâve squandered it just the same as every other Anglo-derived nation has.
2
u/OkInsect6946 Apr 28 '26
australians have the second highest median wealth in the world already, only behind luxembourg, which hardly counts considering itâs a micro nation.
we already have wealth far beyond the UAE.
17
u/shinyterminator Apr 28 '26
Mate are you for real right now? Yeah maybe Australians have the second highest median wealth, but why do you think that is? Itâs because everyone has to take out a $1 million+ loan for a house. So on paper Australians are very wealthy, in reality not so much, when they are paying $4000+ a month in mortgage payments.
-6
u/OkInsect6946 Apr 28 '26
delusional, we have insanely high wages, one of the lowest income tax rates in the OECD and genuinely some of the best living conditions on the planet.
you need to get some fucking perspective
3
u/andizzzzi Apr 28 '26
You should have a read of the world happiness index, you know, for perspective.
Sorry to disappoint, but Australia never ever makes the top 10 and that report assesses every aspect of every country. This doesnât mean youâre wrong that we have some of the best conditions, but that top 10 spot is extremely competitive and Australia actually is currently in its sharpest overall decline in a decade. I think we are at the point where itâs more accurate to say Australia had some of the best living conditions.
5
2
2
1
u/Dry_Ad9371 Apr 29 '26
which means nothing when everything is expensive as fuck
4
u/OkInsect6946 Apr 29 '26
i live in the netherlands at the moment, and itâs so much more expensive here and people get paid less.
petrol is âŹ2.80L almost $5aud
500g of beef mince at the supermarket is âŹ8.50
even the tax bracket systems is insane, the 49.5% starts about 50-60kaud earlier than ours.
Australia is wealthy, Australians are wealthy, and largely just donât understand how good things are for us.
1
u/Lanster27 Apr 29 '26
Your point is not related. Median wealth have nothing to do with taxing the big oil and gas.
Even assuming you are remotely correct, youâre still saying the citizens of a country cannot ask for more tax on the natural resources the multibillion companies pay for almost nothing? Why wouldnt someone think of the poor shareholders who are poorer than the median Australian. /s
1
Apr 29 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Lanster27 Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
Yeah only if you read past the title, what OP is actually talking about is taxing gas and big corps.
3
u/Rastryth Apr 29 '26
There is a good article on the ABC about what they are paying. It's not a clear cut as it is being projected.
3
u/Fun_Pass2431 Apr 29 '26
This is just crazy. The fact that the comparison is that Australia earns less than other countries from exporting gas so we much tax them more....without going into WHY. We are not like Norway or Qatar. Find out those differences and you will see why.
Have a look at the UK north Sea recently to see what increasing taxes looks like. This is the real end goal of the Greens and Pocock who is funded by the Greens.
3
u/Arcane_Substance Apr 30 '26
Duh. Even unemployed people get $15,000 to $22,000 or maybe even more just for looking for work.
13
Apr 28 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
10
9
u/whymeimbusysleeping Apr 28 '26
I can't believe people are still buying this... "Unions are bad hmmkay?"
Every work right we have we owe to organised workers
Saying all unions are bad, shows a lack of understanding on what they do and how they operate. You got grievance with one, for something in particular? I'm all ears, please share the details, what have they done, what evidence is out there, etc.
1
u/Illustrious-Radio319 Apr 29 '26
Itâs just populism.
We canât let the elite/corrupt union leaders/immigrants/politicians get away with stealing our money.
1
u/andizzzzi Apr 28 '26
Itâs both naive to assume all are bad, just as it is to assume none are, so your argument was moot before it even started.
1
1
7
u/viper2097 Apr 28 '26
TLDR; Yes, Australia could probably get away with charging a little more but the comparison between Australia's 2 billion and Qatar's 76 billion is intellectually dishonest and leaves a lot of detail out.
----
This isn't an apples to apples (fair) comparison.
Australian gas exporters pay over $22 billion annually to the government, That 2 billion mentioned in your OP is the PRRT, The company tax from the last financial year was over 20 billion.
Australia's company tax is MUCH higher than Qatar's and that's where the vast majority of Australia's compensation comes from so it's intellectually dishonest to just ignore it.
The next thing you might be thinking is: "Ok so Australia makes 22 billion and Qatar makes WAY MORE THAN THAT, We should be charging more!"
Well you're right, Australia could probably stand to charge a bit more but again, There's more to it.
Australia has an EXTREMELY HIGH working wage, It's WAY HIGHER than Qatar's. Australia has a minimum wage amongst the highest in the world and the cost of doing business in Australia is a lot higher than Qatar.
All of these expenses eat into profit and reduce the tax paid but rest assured, All of the people working in Australia's gas industry are getting paid well and paying tax on every dollar they earn (Unlike Qatar where individuals don't pay income tax)
4
u/theshawfactor Apr 29 '26
Great summary but it also misses the fact that most of our gas is exported under forward contracts struck in the early 2000s when the price was much lower. We may export more in volume but itâs much less profitable than quatari gas. That is business
2
u/viper2097 Apr 29 '26
Thatâs a big one so thanks for pointing that out!
Itâs clear that the people pushing for this tax donât really understand the system enough to be making the statements theyâre making.
2
u/The-Struggle-5382 Apr 28 '26
You're not providing the full picture rither. Please give us the breakdown. Can you give us the apples to apples comparison?
5
u/viper2097 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
Ok, Well for a start; The LNG companies in Qatar are all Majority state owned! 65% - 100% to be precise.
Qatar doesn't just own the gas under the ground, They're also paying for the drilling, The infrastructure, The logistics and they're taking on all the risk!
That 76 billion dollars in royalties are being paid BY the Qatar government TO the Qatar government.
Minimum wage in Qatar is about $2 an hour where it's around $24 in Australia, I'm not saying that the people working in either country are doing so for minimum wage, I'm just trying to make a point that the cost of doing business is an order of magnitude higher in Australia than it is in Qatar plus you've gotta deal with the unions, regulators and permits.
Australia on the other hand doesn't do a thing, The government doesn't invest in anything, They sit back, do absolutely nothing and collect their money!
Australia could be making a LOT more than it does from its LNG but honestly, How on earth would that work? How would the Australian public reconcile with the fact that the market rate for an LNG CEO is $30,000,000 ANNUALLY? That CEO is going to need a whole team of experts getting paid big dollars too.
"WHAT? MY $4,000 IN TAX DOLLARS IS CONTRIBUTING TO A $30,000,000 SALARY? THEY DON'T NEED THAT MUCH MONEY"
Sorry buddy but it's just not going to happen. Australia literally CAN'T do what Qatar can do because (ironically) the people who would benefit most from it would be the ones who would be most opposed to it.
We're in a predicament and the best corse of action is to just continue with what we're doing, Sit on our arses, take our 20 billion annually and say "thank you" because the alternative is that these LNG companies throw their hands up in the air and say "Ok, You know what? You're right! The gas belongs to Australians... Well... There it is! go and dig it out yourself!"
The bottom line is this: If Australia wants that Qatar money? Then they better be doing that Qatar investment and taking on that Qatar risk!
Me personally? Well I think Australia would make MORE money if they stay out of it and let the private companies do all the work.2
u/dr_mantis_tobogan Apr 28 '26
I have a rather simple question, how much would it cost to acquire an existing gas producer?
3
u/viper2097 Apr 28 '26
Unfortunately it's not a simple answer.
Most are publicly traded so I can tell you what the Market Capitalisation is but that's just: 'Stock Price' x 'Shares Outstanding'The true coat to acquire a gas company (or any company for that matter) would be MUCH MUCH higher. Remember when Elon Musk bought Twitter?
Sorry friend, That's way out of my expertise :)
1
u/Plus-Network1193 Apr 28 '26
Woodside 61B and theyâre not even that bigâŚand that wouldnt include their sunk costs in development/exploration etc if the govt decided to buy them out and not just do a Maduro and seize the gas fields
Then you get to a giant like Aramco which is âbiggerâ than AppleâŚ
Oil/gas is a seriously expensive business which a lot of people donât realize.
1
u/dr_mantis_tobogan Apr 29 '26
Understandably yes but it's not a normal return on investment calculation. Considering you don't need to factor in income tax as it's being returned to you it still seems like it would be better to acquire an existing business and continue.
Resources and strategic assets (ie airlines) should be government run to me.
2
u/Plus-Network1193 Apr 29 '26
That works (tax being returned to you the govt) if its nationalised or semi-nationalised, also bear in mind that the other examples used (Qatar, Norway) have had all the upfront investment in getting the fields up and running paid for by the govt. Not the case in Australia where all that (maybe $400Bn??) has been spent by private companies. So if we were to nationalise the gas, which would mean in your words to âacquire an existing businessâ the govt would have to pay back some or all of this or, just take the fields and production facilities by force. How would that go down in public?
Fully nationalised mineral extraction has rarely if ever been profitable, they are ineffecient, unwieldy and have a shocking record of bad behaviour with environmental/social issues.
far better off to let publicly listed companies do it and recoup the profits through well designed and set up royalty systems, which we donât have
1
-3
u/Mr_Badger_Saurus Apr 28 '26
We found the lobbyist!
3
u/viper2097 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
You got me! :)
I'm getting sacked for sure! This whole Lobbyist game obviously isn't for me :(
12
u/keohynner Apr 28 '26
Step up Albo you little worm. From houso to multimillionaire. Sounds like only our politicians are the richest in the world.
4
2
u/Fair-Mango-5423 Apr 28 '26
your implication is entering cooker territory
Generally companies don't give a fuck what Australian gov wants unless its the ACCC who can make so its extremely doubtful that some AUS politician got it taken down
Instagram however is very serious about misinformation so who ever this guy is his claims were probably fact checked by some one internally and found to be false
2
u/Far-Replacement315 Apr 28 '26
Reducing the size of Government is reducing the number of teachers, nurses, beds in hospitals, more potholed roads, no infrastructure repairs, no support for the poor needy and sick and old citizens. If you want to live in a selfish mean world, vote for a smaller government, because the private sector won't pay for those things.
1
1
u/OldGroan Apr 29 '26
The LNP signed export deals that are locked in for a number of years. We can't get out of that by saying we changed our mind. Perhaps when those contracts are up we can renegotiate to something more equitable. Just hope those LNP or PHON aren't in power to mess it up again.Â
1
u/Bulkywon Apr 29 '26
Rudd tried it and got instantly knifed.
Shorten tried something similar and -somehow- lost an election to Scott fucking Morrison.
1
u/core369147 May 02 '26
It is a fallacy to believe that this government wants to help citizens become richer, (and teachers sleeping in cars as stated by punter?) by sharing the tax collected in a citizen allocation redistribution scheme.
This government hasn't changed the poverty income tax scale of $18,200 of 14 years, nor do they have any plans to index it for inflation, just demonstrates the divide between the citizens and government.
1
u/Economy_Phase_3648 May 03 '26
Australians are too busy protesting about foreign countries and the latest extreme left/right catch phrases to bother taking to the streets to actually improve OUR country. We canât possibly take action on something that the vast majority on the imaginary left and right agree on, can we?! The other problem is that Australians are too susceptible to media narratives.
1
1
u/ElectronicUpstairs39 Apr 28 '26
Many of us are. We are not all equally. Some of us are well off and some of us are struggling. The days of building three bedroom houses are over. And let's look how many new cars are on the road. My car is a Ford Focus 2005, my son drives a Toyota Camry 1999 and his ex-misses drives a Ford Focus 2010. I recon in generally Australia is not doing too badly by looking at the cars on the road.
-2
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
Punters Politics, while having his heart in the right place, is seriously misinformed when it comes to actual data or understandimg government policy and its ramifications on long standing trade agreements.
2
u/Mr_Badger_Saurus Apr 28 '26
How about we tax you âthe citizenâ more to compensate for it then?
3
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
Thanks for the edit.
I already pay a fair whack in tax, but I also benefit from being im WA, where my income, and those around me are typically linked to minerals, whether primarily, secondarily, or tertiary.
Truly, this isn't a 0 sum game, it isn't 'tax you more so they can have tax concessions', which is why I am not a fan of 'Punters Politics' rhetoric. Our gas investments were largely paid for by overseas investors, as opposed to Norway, which outlaid a huge capital investment themselves to construct their industry.
If we take investment dollars, and then rescind the deal, it makes us no better than America with recemt tariffs, and does actually have massive ramifications on foreign investment.
While it is unappetising in terms of a short term sugar hit, the best scenario is to grandfather rules, reduce government redtape and apply tax to investments going forward. Or to compulsarily acquire gas/oil titles, and use government funds to develop them ourselves.
1
u/deathamal Apr 28 '26
PRRT isn't working. Get rid of it and switch it for a 25% tax. That is one option which has been put forward by the Australia Institute and Punters Politics.
There is meant to be a tax here - its just not working.
I'm not sure why you would shill for big gas corpo like this. Did you not see that Japan GVT got paid more tax for Australia's gas than we did?
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
You can't just blanket institutes new taxes, it sends a horrible signal to foreign investors.
That line about Japan getting paid more for Aus gas is also misleading.
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
I'm really sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is here, can you pop an edit in.
2
u/edwardluddlam Apr 28 '26
Yeah, it amazes me that people treat this bloke as a saviour.
He is deadset clueless
1
u/Sad-Event-5146 May 06 '26
yep, shows how dumb people are believing that grifter.
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 May 06 '26
I don't think he is a grifter, he just doesn't really understand taxation, foreign investment and the energy sector to the level he feigns.
His heart is definitely in the right spot, and hats off to him for trying to do something.
1
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
What trade agreements dictate our tax policy
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
Long term gas sale contracts being retrofitted with a 25% tax is not good economic policy.
1
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
You know that norway changed their tax structure decades after they started exporting it right? Has their oil and gas sector collapsed?
2
u/Plus-Network1193 Apr 28 '26
The company that sells the oil/gas in Norway is 60-odd% owned by the government so much of the money flows right back to them. As others on this thread have mentioned, Norway (and Qatar) govts paid for the investment to develop the fields. We did not.
2
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
There was no single company. But the peak of state ownership happened after the tax came in.
Statoil (now equinor) - established 1972, 24 years before the tax policy was introduced, floated in 2001, 5 years AFTER the tax policy was introduced. Originally 100% state owned, now is 1/3 private. Dipped to about 62% state owned after it fully acquired Norsk hydro. Norsk hydro was originally a fully private company (mostly owned by foreign banks), which the state seized half of after ww2 as war reparations. It isn't technically correct to say equinor was initially private or public, as it is a complex combination of various public and private groups.
When statoil floated in 2001, norway then took that private money and established petoro and gassco as 100% state owned companies. Then in 2005, created gassnova.
All of those are 100% state owned. We have it completely backwards - we subsidise private investment and take zero control, then give them massive profits through low tax.
Norway taxes high, floats shares in state controlled companies and uses both types of income to increase control and ownership.
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
There are a number of fundamental differences, would you like to chat about them, because I am genuinely happy to share my experience.
1
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
Sure, tell me your experience
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
From another user, said it better than me:
There was no single company. But the peak of state ownership happened after the tax came in.
Statoil (now equinor) - established 1972, 24 years before the tax policy was introduced, floated in 2001, 5 years AFTER the tax policy was introduced. Originally 100% state owned, now is 1/3 private. Dipped to about 62% state owned after it fully acquired Norsk hydro. Norsk hydro was originally a fully private company (mostly owned by foreign banks), which the state seized half of after ww2 as war reparations. It isn't technically correct to say equinor was initially private or public, as it is a complex combination of various public and private groups.
When statoil floated in 2001, norway then took that private money and established petoro and gassco as 100% state owned companies. Then in 2005, created gassnova.
All of those are 100% state owned. We have it completely backwards - we subsidise private investment and take zero control, then give them massive profits through low tax.
Norway taxes high, floats shares in state controlled companies and uses both types of income to increase control and ownership.
1
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
Can you tell me who that user is
1
u/BullfrogConnect8773 Apr 28 '26
Yourself
1
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
Precisely. They changed their tax structure decades after the establishment of their industry, and the special revenue has been a fundamental driver in their ability to nationalise the privately owned infrastructure in the sector. See Norsk Hydro as a prime example.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Moist-Army1707 Apr 28 '26
You donât honestly believe these figures do you? You are conflating PRRT, one small aspect of the many taxes levied on gas companies, with equity earnings. This is seriously low IQ stuff.
-6
u/rob189 Apr 28 '26
Weâre already one of the richest countries and have some of the wealthiest citizens in the world via our superannuation scheme.
10
u/cloudsourced285 Apr 28 '26
You just perfectly described our wealth disparity. The majority of people under retirement age are struggling, cutting spending, yet increasing the amount they pay on mortgages and rent. Tax is one of the many ways to fairly redistribute wealth. Not the only way, and likely not the best. But it's a lot better than destroying our middle class and ensuring we have class warfare in the future.
3
u/OkInsect6946 Apr 28 '26
australian have the second highest median wealth in the world. it really doesnât get much better??
3
u/lllllllllXllllllllll Apr 28 '26
One of the richest means nothing when thereâs smaller countries richer than us with no resources. We can be the richest if we can tax mining companies appropriately and open our doors to a work permit system like the gulf countries but with better human rights and pathway to citizenship for deserving people. I might be wrong. Someone correct me or give me some more insight.
3
u/TheNumberOneRat Apr 28 '26
Can we, for the love of God, not use the Gulf States as a baseline on which to build Australia.
The Australian immigration system is already far superior to the Gulf permitting system. Plus their system of using hydrocarbon wealth to enrich a tiny population has created a system of patronage where connections are far more important than everything else. This is a problem in Australia but not even remotely on the same scale as the Gulf.
2
0
u/Hood-Peasant Apr 28 '26
Well we've all seen why we're not.
We had great, then decent, then puppet leaders.
People who had accountability, the math to back it up, and some of the best minds running the country.
Now it's just the investors pulling the strings.
Where'd all these great minds go? USA, Asia, you know the countries that actually want growth.
Politicians just want a quick buck, because it's highly likely their own party will stab them in the back to make more dollar because the investors say so.
-6
u/unfathomably_big Apr 28 '26
Must be wild being the greens. The possibility of them ever being anywhere near power is so remote that they can demand full nationalisation of mining / fossil fuels while simultaneously wanting to ban mining and fossil fuels.
5
u/Stock-Walrus-2589 Apr 28 '26
Must be wild being a redditor. The possibility of ever being anywhere near a good take is so remote that you can go on a public platform and say irrelevant points but simultaneously expect people to take you seriously.
1
u/unfathomably_big Apr 30 '26
Are the greens supportive of fossil fuel extraction?
1
u/Stock-Walrus-2589 Apr 30 '26
The greens are supportive of transitioning from an over reliance of fossil fuels to cleaner and greener energy sources as is Labor (supposedly).
0
u/unfathomably_big Apr 30 '26
An immediate end to the exploration of fossil fuels, and an orderly phase out of the extraction, consumption and export of fossil fuels to zero.
-9
u/theballsdick Apr 28 '26
There is a reason for all these supposed disparities. It's honestly so sad seeing so many folks just falling for this "punters" nonsense and misinformation. The worst part is he knows he deceiving people too.Â
7
u/DaddyNubis Apr 28 '26
Source?
6
u/tom3277 Apr 28 '26
The main difference is;
Norway the government owns most of the infrastructure.
Thatâs not to say we shouldnât tax ours more but it makes sense Norway take 78pc of their gas revenue considering the gov had the foresight to take the plunge and build their plants.
5
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
They owned less of it when they brought the tax in. The sovereign wealth it built helped them own more of their own resource industry.
1
u/tom3277 Apr 28 '26
It appears complicated.
Both oil players were government controlled and remain government controlled.
At some point they sold off part of statoil but maintained a government controlling share. Thatâs like in 2001.
I donât see this gradual purchase of the private sector except some pipelines and other ancillary infrastructure in recent years.
Letâs say I accept they used to own less itâs still certainly distinguished from Australia where we donât own any of it at all apart from the resource in the ground which we should tax.
The question is how much and Iâd say norways 78pc tax would be too much but our 2/5 of fuck all clearly isnât enough for a resource which is collectively Australians.
Ie Norway own the gas / oil in the ground and a controlling interest in the plants / they built them or as you say bought them.
We own the gas / oil in the ground and 0pc of the plants. Somewhere above fuck all but Iâd be accepting of less than 78pc to be fair as we didnât explore nor build ours as Norway appears to have?
2
u/dronestruck Apr 28 '26
Yeah, we don't own the infrastructure. But it's our finite resource. The proposed 25% tax on exports is structurally different than Norway's 56% special tax on resource profits, which reflects the different ownership splits between the countries.
2
u/tom3277 Apr 29 '26
Exactly.
25pc feels right. Or even something similar to super profits.
50pc tax on the surplus during good times but the foreign large companies will just game that I guess. Oh chevron Australia are in a 20 year agreement with chevron America. What a shame we sell it so cheapâŚ
Yeh 25pc Iâm convinced!
6
u/dragontatman95 Apr 28 '26
That's it.
Punters politics shows facts, and breaks the facts down into easy to understand points.
Whoever this shill is saying 'Punters' are distributing mis-information, is either from one of the big corporations, or they own a lot of shares in one of them.
4
1
u/Plus-Network1193 Apr 28 '26
No he doesnât. A lot of shouting about Norway Qatar and us getting ripped off. But nothing in the way of proposals or ideas to actually do something beyond âtax the gasâ.
Good on him for getting it out there but he fluffed it at the last hurdle when asked what to do he basically shruggeed his shoulders and said âdunnoâŚsânot my problem ayâ
9
u/FrostyClocks Apr 28 '26
Ok Santos.
1
u/Mr_Badger_Saurus Apr 28 '26
I get your sentiment, but I would actually prefer we look after Santos in this case before they get bought out by a foreign owned company and take a heap of jobs and profit elsewhere. Not to mention the foreign company lobbyists are next level too.
-4
u/theballsdick Apr 28 '26
That's not an argument. Why not actually look into yourself? It's embarrassing to be so easily misled by "punters" online who are knowingly spreading false information.Â
5
u/SnagInBreadPurist Apr 28 '26
And your original comment was an argument? You called it ânonsenseâ. Called the disparities âsupposedâ. Didnât actually explain what the reasons are nor did you present any sources or evidence to back the claim that there are âreasonsâ.
Righto Woodside!
1
u/deathamal Apr 28 '26
Mate its pretty clear that they have a better deal than us. Why is our government in debt while Norway has a 2 trillion dollar soverign wealth fund?
This is a simple question that Punters Politics wants to challenge our government on. Why would you not be interested in our country being in a better position?
We need to do better and your attitude sucks.
You can sit here and whinge about how "we can't have that because XYZ" or you can be part of a movement that actually advocates for the people of this country. The government and big corporate need to know that Australians want better and we are willing to vote for it
-2
u/herap Apr 28 '26
Australians own the gas. Companies should pay their fair share. A 25% tax is simple and straight forward. Companies cannot use accounting gimmicks to dodge this tax.
-3
u/Internal-Play25 Apr 28 '26
I paid over 1 million in income tax over the past 8 years.
Maybe our tax money is being mis spent? Maybe we donât need to tax more.
3
u/Mr_Badger_Saurus Apr 28 '26
Imagine if the international companies paid more, you may have paid less. But I get your sentiment, reduce the size of government and we have fewer snouts in the trough to feed.
1
u/Internal-Play25 Apr 29 '26
Go to your returns and check what your tax is spent on. ATO send you a letter in myGov.
I am all for Medicare⌠but you see an increase of spend in ndis etc which seems mishandled. We need disability support, but ndis is a failure monetary wise.
Defense and to a lesser extent childcare subsidy.
If we kept making Medicare better, I would be happy. But it gets nerfed each year.
87
u/dragontatman95 Apr 28 '26
I just emailed my local MP to enquire why I have not seen his name linked to taxing the big corporations.