Port Botany cruise terminal

[The_Big_M]

3 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 don't hold ya breath for that info 

 

if its low on content , then why redact it if they have nothing to hide release it for all to see and make judgement .. I didn't post a blurred out report , port authority sent that to us and mind you we were expecting the full un redacted report but ended up with that

 

When that information was released, it should also state why some information was hidden. What was the reason?

 

 

[in rod we trust]

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Claiming cruiseships are registered in countries such as Malta is so they can avoid paying taxes is totally wrong and I have to say, shows your lack of understanding of the cruise industry. Just because the ship might be registered in another country does not mean that the company avoid paying tax. The port of registry is totally irrelevant when it comes to tax. The major cruise lines are corporations registered in USA and/or UK and that is where they would declare their profits on which they pay tax.

http://www.cruiseresearch.org/Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships.html

[lyndarra]

33 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Your posts make no sense..total dribble.

The term is "drivel" not "dribble".

 

[in rod we trust]

13 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

When that information was released, it should also state why some information was hidden. What was the reason?

 

 

cabinet in conference  .. again what are they trying to hide by not releasing the whole report .. its not a national security issue 

Edited January 6, 2020 by in rod we trust

[Aus Traveller]

1 minute ago, in rod we trust said:

http://www.cruiseresearch.org/Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships.html

I didn't bother to read all of the paper you referenced. Here is part of it:

 

Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries, i.e. Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas.  In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament.

 

I agree with the comment about avoiding labour laws, but the paper you referenced does not state that the companies avoid paying tax in the countries where they are registered. If you think this is the case, you obviously do not understand corporate law.

 

BTW the Carnival Corporation is registered on the New York Stock Exchange and pays taxes in USA. It is also registered on the London Stock Exchange. Some of Carnival Corporation's ships are registered in Bermuda for which it pays fees to the Bermudan government, and others are registered in London. But, once again, the port of registry of ships is irrelevant when discussing income tax. It is a proverbial red herring - not one caught in Botany Bay. 😁

[in rod we trust]

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I didn't bother to read all of the paper you referenced. Here is part of it:

 

Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries, i.e. Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas.  In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament.

 

I agree with the comment about avoiding labour laws, but the paper you referenced does not state that the companies avoid paying tax in the countries where they are registered. If you think this is the case, you obviously do not understand corporate law.

 

BTW the Carnival Corporation is registered on the New York Stock Exchange and pays taxes in USA. It is also registered on the London Stock Exchange. Some of Carnival Corporation's ships are registered in Bermuda for which it pays fees to the Bermudan government, and others are registered in London. But, once again, the port of registry of ships is irrelevant when discussing income tax. It is a proverbial red herring - not one caught in Botany Bay. 😁

yeah sorry not countries where they are registered but ones they visit .. the list I have has carnival flying the flag of the Bahamas  it also shows royal  carribean flying the same flag 

 

https://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/758-cruise-ship-registry-flags-of-convenience-flag-state-control

Edited January 6, 2020 by in rod we trust

[gbenjo]

18 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

The term is "drivel" not "dribble".

 

OK, sorry ... then you have drivel running down your mouth.

[in rod we trust]

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/02/articles/taxes/no-taxes-the-cruise-lines-dirty-little-secret/

[Aus Traveller]

11 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

yeah sorry not countries where they are registered but ones they visit .. the list I have has carnival flying the flag of the Bahamas  it also shows royal  carribean flying the same flag 

I tried to cut and paste this information about port of registry, but it wouldn't work. So I have typed out the ports of registry of cruise ships around the world. You will see that they are registered in many different countries.

 

Bahamas                59    RCI, NCL, Carnival (some of its fleet), Seabourn

Panama                  30    Carnival, MSC

Bermuda                 23    Princess and P&O

Italy                          23    Costa and Aida

Malta                       20    Celebrity and Azamara

Netherlands           15    Holland America

Portugal                    9    Classic International, Iberocruceros

UK                              7    Cunard, P&O Australia

Marshall Islands     4    Oceania

Japan                       4     NYK, Mitsui, OSK and Venus

USA                           1    NCL America

 

BWT, it was announced when Princess changed its port of registry from the UK to Bermuda it was so its Captains could perform marriages at sea, something that could not be done under UK law. 

 

[Aus Traveller]

9 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/02/articles/taxes/no-taxes-the-cruise-lines-dirty-little-secret/

BTW, who do you think profits from the earnings of these cruise lines? It is the shareholders 😁😁.

[MicCanberra]

27 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

BTW, who do you think profits from the earnings of these cruise lines? It is the shareholders 😁😁.

Thank you CCL, keep those dividends coming along with my shareholder benefits.

[lyndarra]

40 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

OK, sorry ... then you have drivel running down your mouth.

Is that what happens when you get to my age?😕. Sorry if I came across as a pedant. I'm one of those who shudder at the misuse of some words e.g. Your, you're, yore, yaw. There, they're, their.  Weather, wether, whether, etc..

 

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

 here just for you to read 

http://www.destinationdevelopmentwatch.com/can-destinations-increase-revenue-limiting-banning-cruise-ships-yes-keep-reading/

 

I do agree with the point about land tourism. There have been a lot of studies that corroborate that land tourism is the most financially beneficial type of tourism and most of all it is best for regional tourism. The one thing I noticed about travelling in Europe that really impressed me is how much the countries there push regional tourism. The really try to promote awareness of their wilderness areas and countrysides and have great resources for planning trips to those parts of the country. But there is also no denying they have far better public transport that probably helps regional tourism. Maybe there is something to be argued about investing in regional public transport rather than a cruise terminal🤔

[MicCanberra]

2 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

Is that what happens when you get to my age?😕. Sorry if I came across as a pedant. I'm one of those who shudder at the misuse of some words e.g. Your, you're, yore, yaw. There, they're, their.  Weather, wether, whether, etc..

 

 I, eye, aye agree.

[Aus Traveller]

4 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

'm one of those who shudder at the misuse of some words e.g. Your, you're, yore, yaw. There, they're, their.  Weather, wether, whether, etc..

I do agree. I also shudder at the common misuse of apostrophes.

 

Sorry - off topic.😁

Edited January 6, 2020 by Aus Traveller

[ilikeanswers]

47 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/02/articles/taxes/no-taxes-the-cruise-lines-dirty-little-secret/

 

I do agree that corporations not sharing their load of the tax burden is a problem but it is problem that is not isolated to the cruise industry. They are continuing a practice that is practised in every industry. Would it be nice if the cruise industry took it upon themselves to make moral stand sure but we have to live in the real world and in the real world it really comes to governments closing loop holes.

[gbenjo]

58 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

Is that what happens when you get to my age?😕. Sorry if I came across as a pedant. I'm one of those who shudder at the misuse of some words e.g. Your, you're, yore, yaw. There, they're, their.  Weather, wether, whether, etc..

 

Sorry lyndarra I thought it was one of Rods replies. I should have read it correctly ( not properly)😁 

He seems to use the incorrect word/ phrase quite frequently so I was a bit surprised  when I thought he picked the error. it should have read. “Drivel dribbling down his mouth” 😂😂

[The_Big_M]

7 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

cabinet in conference  .. again what are they trying to hide by not releasing the whole report .. its not a national security issue 

 

It usually (or traditionally) means its commercially damaging, e.g. they need to keep secret because of contracts or for commercial reasons e.g. it could give bidders an idea of how much to quote for when they're bidding as one example, or there are contracts requiring secrecy as tenderers may not wish to disclose how much they're paying for competitive reasons as another example.

[in rod we trust]

2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

It usually (or traditionally) means its commercially damaging, e.g. they need to keep secret because of contracts or for commercial reasons e.g. it could give bidders an idea of how much to quote for when they're bidding as one example, or there are contracts requiring secrecy as tenderers may not wish to disclose how much they're paying for competitive reasons as another example.

 

doesn't matter what they bid as by going off any other nsw projects it will be 2-3 times more than the gov estimates..  and I don't agree on that keeping it secret for contracts , to me and many others , its because they don't want to tell you how damaging it is to the environment and what they will destroy building it  or what it will cost..  

 

 

[MicCanberra]

You cannot put a price on that toxic sludge.

[Russell21]

14 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

cabinet in conference  .. again what are they trying to hide by not releasing the whole report .. its not a national security issue 

If you had any business knowledge at all you would know that it is quite common practice for a considerable amount of reports in the early stages of studying a possible project, to be redacted. This is an endeavour to guard any commercially valuable information that may, if released, be advantageous to interested parties, thus enabling them to gain an unfair advantage over other interested parties. For a further understanding look up "Insider trading" where information that is not available to the general public is used by people with access to the redacted information. 

[The_Big_M]

10 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

doesn't matter what they bid as by going off any other nsw projects it will be 2-3 times more than the gov estimates..  and I don't agree on that keeping it secret for contracts , to me and many others , its because they don't want to tell you how damaging it is to the environment and what they will destroy building it  or what it will cost..  

 

 

 

Well, that aint reality as at this stage there is not sufficient information for any detailed environmental impacts. That comes later when they do the environmental impact study.

[in rod we trust]

7 hours ago, Russell21 said:

If you had any business knowledge at all you would know that it is quite common practice for a considerable amount of reports in the early stages of studying a possible project, to be redacted. This is an endeavour to guard any commercially valuable information that may, if released, be advantageous to interested parties, thus enabling them to gain an unfair advantage over other interested parties. For a further understanding look up "Insider trading" where information that is not available to the general public is used by people with access to the redacted information. 

 

you can spin all you want about business practise ..  doesn't take away the fact that its all been kept under wraps ,  and not made available to the general public .. you blokes asked for there info and its there right for you to see.  

now your just looking for avenues to use why it is redacted..  and that's only part of the report ..   

that was just yarra bay and mollineaux point

they also have garden island report , athol bay, and rose bay, port kembla, Newcastle , but there is no use posting it as its much of the same all been redacted..

 

I said many times its not national security issue therefore should be made for all to see the pro's and con's ..  

 the HON  Peter Collins AM QC . he mentioned garden island could be used by the cruise industry , but Malcom turnbull  just rejected the idea without even reading his report..  he was appointed  chair of the cruise industry reference group .. he also is against the yarra bay and molli point terminal .. he was a guest speaker at one of the meeting the residents had at yarra bay sailing club

 

now do you think the EIS will be made public as .. no chance it will 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by in rod we trust

[in rod we trust]

its ironic tho we are having the same fight here trying to save a great place as they are in the cayman islands, and many other places , that are starting to not want cruise ships in there ports ..  

 

don't let the climate  activists get a hold of just how damaging some of the cruise industry footprint once they hit international waters ,  the amount of bunker fuel burnt . toxic pollution etc etc if they start to read and hear just how bad they can be, then the cruise industry just may have a bit to answer for..  another carnival cruise ship was fined for dumping crap again ..  so much for being green 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/04/729622653/carnival-cruise-lines-hit-with-20-million-penalty-for-environmental-crimes

Edited January 7, 2020 by in rod we trust

[GUT2407]

3 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

its ironic tho we are having the same fight here trying to save a great place as they are in the cayman islands, and many other places , that are starting to not want cruise ships in there ports ..  

 

don't let the climate  activists get a hold of just how damaging some of the cruise industry practice once they hit international waters ,  the amount of bunker fuel burnt . toxic pollution etc etc

Yet still you allow your wife to cruise, just not on Royal.