Page 115 of 115 FirstFirst ... 1565105111112113114115
Results 571 to 573 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    No reply from minority, because no answer to why a loss-making company NEEDS to pay taxes???????????

    Ha ha ha!

    So you can imagine, without all those maneuvering and large asset depreciation, how profitable PUB will need to report in net profit (in addition to cash profit which is NOT readily obvious on their financial statements)!

    Imagine, instead of quick depreciation of assets, PUB adopts the depreciation schedule similar to those drawn up by LTA for 99-years Leasehold land, where for the first 40 years depreciation only depreciate ~20%, then PUB will report huge net profits (in addition to net cash profit)!

    Why nobody question such abnomality:

    1) Company must adopt straight line or conservation quick depreciation of their assets.

    while 2) LTA recommends valuation of 99-years leasehold land based on some weird schedule where an asset is supposed to last 99-years and LTA recommends valuation of only 20% drop in value over >40 years (i.e. >40% of their life span spent) while companies need to depreciate their assets by >40% over 40% of their life span?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    If you don't know what is the difference between "Net Income" and "Cash Profits", you can read my post again here:
    http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...347#post525347

    Don't come bullshitting here without even having any basic accounting knowledge......

    And may be you can tell us why in your "pub.jpg", why if PUB is losing money and why it needs to pay $34.3 MILLIONS in TAXES for FY2016 on its income (or rather, "LOSSES" as you claimed)?
    Ha ha ha! Lies BUSTED!
    Last edited by teddybear; 12th May 2017 at 08:09 PM.



  2. #572
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Actually, given that PUB is earning SO MUCH net CASH PROFITS that they can distribute as dividends, if it is a listed company I would also invested BIG SUM of money in it!

    Unfortunately PUB is not listed.

    Are there listed companies that earn as much or even more CASH PROFITS than PUB (and yet with low net to equity ratio)?
    I would be very eager to invest in such companies!


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    No reply from minority, because no answer to why a loss-making company NEEDS to pay taxes???????????

    Ha ha ha!

    So you can imagine, without all those maneuvering and large asset depreciation, how profitable PUB will need to report in net profit (in addition to cash profit which is NOT readily obvious on their financial statements)!

    Imagine, instead of quick depreciation of assets, PUB adopts the depreciation schedule similar to those drawn up by LTA for 99-years Leasehold land, where for the first 40 years depreciation only depreciate ~20%, then PUB will report huge net profits (in addition to net cash profit)!

    Why nobody question such abnomality:

    1) Company must adopt straight line or conservation quick depreciation of their assets.

    while 2) LTA recommends valuation of 99-years leasehold land based on some weird schedule where an asset is supposed to last 99-years and LTA recommends valuation of only 20% drop in value over >40 years (i.e. >40% of their life span spent) while companies need to depreciate their assets by >40% over 40% of their life span?



  3. #573
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    minority still has no answer as to why PUB that claimed to be a loss-making company need to pay >$34M in taxes????????????
    And what are those taxes for (if they are not income tax)?

    Ha ha ha!


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    No reply from minority, because no answer to why a loss-making company NEEDS to pay taxes???????????

    Ha ha ha!

    So you can imagine, without all those maneuvering and large asset depreciation, how profitable PUB will need to report in net profit (in addition to cash profit which is NOT readily obvious on their financial statements)!

    Imagine, instead of quick depreciation of assets, PUB adopts the depreciation schedule similar to those drawn up by LTA for 99-years Leasehold land, where for the first 40 years depreciation only depreciate ~20%, then PUB will report huge net profits (in addition to net cash profit)!

    Why nobody question such abnomality:

    1) Company must adopt straight line or conservation quick depreciation of their assets.

    while 2) LTA recommends valuation of 99-years leasehold land based on some weird schedule where an asset is supposed to last 99-years and LTA recommends valuation of only 20% drop in value over >40 years (i.e. >40% of their life span spent) while companies need to depreciate their assets by >40% over 40% of their life span?



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •