From June 1st, the first pilot of China’s resource tax reforms to land in Xinjiang, the central government announced in early July that it would push resource tax reforms to 12 provinces and regions in the western region. The dust-filled 17-year resource tax reform has accelerated its pace after breaking ice. After that, what form of resource tax reform will be introduced to the country? What impact will this tax reform have on resource-based industries? These questions are pervading the chemical industry.
Tax reform breaks ice ahead of the west On June 1st, the central government formally changed the taxation of oil and natural gas resources in the Xinjiang region from ad hoc measurement to ad valorem. The 17-year resource tax reform that has been dusty in China has thus broken the ice.
Earlier, the collection of resource taxes has been inherited from the Measures for the Quantitative Collection of the Provisional Regulations on the Resource Tax of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Provisional Regulations) promulgated in 1993. The resource tax payable by the taxpayer shall be paid to the competent tax authority where the taxable product is produced or produced. According to this ordinance, petroleum, natural gas and coal are collected at 8-30 yuan/ton, 2-15 yuan/million cubic meters, and 0.3-5 yuan/ton respectively. However, since 1993, the prices of various resources in the country have undergone earth-shaking changes. During this period, crude oil prices surged from US$10/barrel in 1999 to US$140/barrel in 2008 and are currently stable at US$70-80 per barrel; domestic crude oil production also climbed from 145 million tons in 1993 to 189 million tons in 2009. . The levy of resource taxes has been controversial.
At the same time, the energy consumption situation in China is increasingly causing anxiety among people of insight. The data shows that at present, China’s gross national product accounts for about 4% of the world’s total, but it consumes 31% of the world’s coal, 8% of oil, and 10% of electricity. The recovery rate of mineral resources is only 30%, which is more advanced than foreign countries. 20% lower. In recent years, the call for resource tax reforms has been increasing, and the meager resource tax is only a drop in the bucket compared with the funds needed to deal with environmental destruction and pollution and ecological restoration. It is even more difficult to play a role in guiding the entire society in saving non-renewable resources and scarce resources. .
On the global scale, as the contradiction between the scarcity of energy resources and the strong demand for economic development after the financial crisis has become more prominent, it is a general trend to increase the resource tax. On May 2 of this year, Wayne Swann, who was Australian Treasury Secretary at the time, demanded that 40% of the company's income exceeds 6% of profits from Australian government mining, land-based natural gas, and coal-bed methane industries. Although the Australian government eventually set the tax rate at 30%, the upward trend has already begun. It is also understood that countries such as Brazil, Chile, Mongolia, Zambia, Peru, and Ecuador have all considered or implemented an increase in mining taxes.
In fact, since the beginning of this year, China’s resource tax reforms have come to fruition.
At the National Finance Working Conference on January 10, the Minister of Finance Xie Xuren made it clear that in 2010 China will "promote a resource tax reform plan in due course to promote resource conservation and environmental protection." Two months later, Premier Wen Jiabao explicitly stated in the "Government Work Report" of the two sessions that he would "promote the reform of the resource tax." Afterwards, the Central Xinjiang Work Conference convened in late May formally established Xinjiang as a pilot for reform of resource taxes and fees. On June 1, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation jointly promulgated the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Reform of Xinjiang's Crude Natural Gas Resource Taxes," the collection of petroleum and natural gas resource taxes was changed from specific measurement to ad valorem, and the tax rate was formally announced as 5%. At the Western Development Conference in early July, Premier Wen Jiabao stated that he would also include coal in the scope of the tax reform of resource taxes, and he must expand the resource tax reform to 12 provinces and regions in the western region.
The results of the pilot project in the first two months of the reform show that the impact of the resource tax reforms in Xinjiang on the oil extraction companies has been highlighted for two months. During the first levy period, CNPC Tarim Oilfield Company, Sinopec Northwest Oilfield Company, and Sinopec Henan Oilfield Company Xinjiang Exploration and Development Center paid a total of 198 million yuan in resource taxes, which was calculated from the first five months of this year. The average increase was 162 million yuan, an increase of 444.7%. Previously, some experts estimated that according to Xinjiang's production of 25.18 million tons of crude oil in 2009, the resource tax paid by the oil extraction enterprises would be as high as 5 billion yuan. This "unexpected wealth" will flow into the pockets of the local government.
However, the resource tax burden on oil is currently not passed on to downstream chemical companies. Recently learned from the Xinjiang Petrochemical Association, resource tax reform has little effect on the local oil chemical industry. Zhao Zhiping, director of the Information and Marketing Department of the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation, analyzed that the impact of Xinjiang's resource tax reform on the downstream chemical industry is not easy to show. First of all, domestic oil prices are internationally linked and will not undergo major adjustments due to rising resource taxes. From the perspective of the current internationalization of oil prices, the increase in costs caused by resource taxes can only be borne by the oil recovery companies themselves. Unless domestic crude oil prices have completely deviated from international oil prices, such deviations are not in line with China’s energy development direction. Second, at present, resource tax reforms have only been implemented in Xinjiang, which has not reached the level of embarrassment for domestic oil production companies. Therefore, there is little chance that the oil-producing companies will transfer the rising cost of resource taxes to the downstream.
Unlike oil exploitation, natural gas extraction has been blessed in this tax reform. Because on June 1st, the natural gas resources tax was calculated at the same time, the country also increased the base price (or first station) of natural gas for each oil and gas field by 230 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters, and the natural gas extraction companies also increased revenue. The price of natural gas for direct supply of natural gas from the Xinjiang Oilfield was adjusted to 1,215 yuan/million cubic meters on June 1st, and was charged at 5% of the resource tax, and 60.75 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters were required, compared with 15 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters before the tax reform. , 3 times more. After June 1, natural gas prices increased 0.23 yuan per cubic meter and the price per 230 cubic meters increased by 230 yuan. After hedging, the gas-producing enterprises not only did not lower their profit margins before the reform of the resource tax, but also increased.
Different from the oil industry chain, the price increase of natural gas immediately caused turbulence in the downstream industries. The gas-head chemical companies agonize. The production costs of gasification and gasification enterprises in Sichuan, such as Chuanhua Chemical Co., Ltd., Lutianhua and Sichuan Meifeng, all increased by hundreds of millions, and their profits shrank by nearly half.
Obviously, natural gas prices can be seen as a preview of the implementation of the resource tax reform nationwide. In other words, if the resource tax reform of oil, gas and coal is promoted throughout the country, the cost pressure on the petrochemical industry will be enormous. Taking oil as an example, according to the calculation of China's oil production of 189.5 million tons and the average price of international crude oil of 75 dollars per barrel in 2009, the resource tax levy will allow China's oil recovery companies to shoulder a burden of 5.2 billion U.S. dollars, paying 550% more. More than 90% of China's oil production industry is monopolized by Sinopec, PetroChina and other companies, and domestic petrochemical raw materials are mainly supplied by them. Liu Yijun, a professor at the China Petroleum University, said that in the long run, although the price of oil is an international linkage, if the resource tax is promoted nationwide, a large number of chemical raw materials products will not rule out the transfer of resource taxes to downstream companies through price increases. From the point of view of the state policy, there is also the desire to promote the downward transfer of the resource tax, because only in this way can the chemical companies be supervised and urged to save resources and do fine work.
However, if other resources such as coal and chemical ore resources are reformed together, the impact on the chemical industry will be unprecedented. The person in charge of the same coal mine in Shanxi Province once estimated that if the coking coal price is 1,500 yuan/ton this year, if the 5% ad valorem tax is imposed, the tax burden will be 9.4 times the current one. Because coal prices are more flexible than oil and gas prices, it may be more direct to pass them downstream.
Both the tax reform and the development of resource tax have obvious benefits to the national economy. Professor Wang Huang of Chengdu University of Technology believes that the benefits of resource tax reform are threefold: First, it will help improve the level of economic development in resource-based regions and promote coordinated regional development. China's mineral resources are concentrated in the relatively backward areas of the central and western regions. As resource taxes are incorporated into local finances, advancing resource tax reforms can change the pattern of interest distribution and promote coordinated regional development. Second, it will help change the extensive economic growth mode and optimize the industrial structure. The resource tax reform can impose higher costs on resource extraction and use, force corporate technological transformation and management innovation, and promote economic growth from relying mainly on increasing the consumption of material resources to relying mainly on scientific and technological progress, improvement of the quality of laborers, and management innovation. Again, it is conducive to the formation of a resource-saving mode of production and living. The direct result of resource tax reform is to curb corporate waste of resources; the indirect result is to increase the price of some of the final products that consume a lot of resources, thereby affecting consumers’ consumer behavior and promoting the conservation of resources of the entire society.
Industry experts also put forward their opinions and suggestions on the future development direction of resource tax reform. Zhao Zhiping analyzed that the ongoing reforms in Xinjiang are accurately called oil and gas tax reforms and cannot be regarded as resource tax reforms in the true sense. The resources involved in the resource tax reform should at least include seven types of resources already listed in the "Provisional Regulations" such as coal and salt, while the types of resources in the Xinjiang pilot do not even include coal that is also energy. China's oil, gas, and coal are three kinds of energy sources that are linked together. The annual coal mining volume of about 3 billion tons is much larger than that of petroleum 189 million tons, and its influence is even more far-reaching. Therefore, if you want to promote the country, there will be great changes in the trial mode of Xinjiang.
There are also people in the industry thinking more about the risk of a comprehensive reform of the next resource tax. Liu Yijun analyzed that under the conditions of market economy, the natural gas price increase should not have caused such a big shock to downstream companies, and raw material prices have risen. However, because of overcapacity, the market price of downstream products is difficult to follow. Therefore, he suggested that the best period for the national tax promotion reform is to resume after the national economy is fully restored and the company has a certain level of anti-risk capability. The initial level of levy should not be too high, and gradually increase to 5% within 2-3 years. . Only in this way can we ensure growth and promote energy conservation.
Tax reform breaks ice ahead of the west On June 1st, the central government formally changed the taxation of oil and natural gas resources in the Xinjiang region from ad hoc measurement to ad valorem. The 17-year resource tax reform that has been dusty in China has thus broken the ice.
Earlier, the collection of resource taxes has been inherited from the Measures for the Quantitative Collection of the Provisional Regulations on the Resource Tax of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Provisional Regulations) promulgated in 1993. The resource tax payable by the taxpayer shall be paid to the competent tax authority where the taxable product is produced or produced. According to this ordinance, petroleum, natural gas and coal are collected at 8-30 yuan/ton, 2-15 yuan/million cubic meters, and 0.3-5 yuan/ton respectively. However, since 1993, the prices of various resources in the country have undergone earth-shaking changes. During this period, crude oil prices surged from US$10/barrel in 1999 to US$140/barrel in 2008 and are currently stable at US$70-80 per barrel; domestic crude oil production also climbed from 145 million tons in 1993 to 189 million tons in 2009. . The levy of resource taxes has been controversial.
At the same time, the energy consumption situation in China is increasingly causing anxiety among people of insight. The data shows that at present, China’s gross national product accounts for about 4% of the world’s total, but it consumes 31% of the world’s coal, 8% of oil, and 10% of electricity. The recovery rate of mineral resources is only 30%, which is more advanced than foreign countries. 20% lower. In recent years, the call for resource tax reforms has been increasing, and the meager resource tax is only a drop in the bucket compared with the funds needed to deal with environmental destruction and pollution and ecological restoration. It is even more difficult to play a role in guiding the entire society in saving non-renewable resources and scarce resources. .
On the global scale, as the contradiction between the scarcity of energy resources and the strong demand for economic development after the financial crisis has become more prominent, it is a general trend to increase the resource tax. On May 2 of this year, Wayne Swann, who was Australian Treasury Secretary at the time, demanded that 40% of the company's income exceeds 6% of profits from Australian government mining, land-based natural gas, and coal-bed methane industries. Although the Australian government eventually set the tax rate at 30%, the upward trend has already begun. It is also understood that countries such as Brazil, Chile, Mongolia, Zambia, Peru, and Ecuador have all considered or implemented an increase in mining taxes.
In fact, since the beginning of this year, China’s resource tax reforms have come to fruition.
At the National Finance Working Conference on January 10, the Minister of Finance Xie Xuren made it clear that in 2010 China will "promote a resource tax reform plan in due course to promote resource conservation and environmental protection." Two months later, Premier Wen Jiabao explicitly stated in the "Government Work Report" of the two sessions that he would "promote the reform of the resource tax." Afterwards, the Central Xinjiang Work Conference convened in late May formally established Xinjiang as a pilot for reform of resource taxes and fees. On June 1, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation jointly promulgated the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Reform of Xinjiang's Crude Natural Gas Resource Taxes," the collection of petroleum and natural gas resource taxes was changed from specific measurement to ad valorem, and the tax rate was formally announced as 5%. At the Western Development Conference in early July, Premier Wen Jiabao stated that he would also include coal in the scope of the tax reform of resource taxes, and he must expand the resource tax reform to 12 provinces and regions in the western region.
The results of the pilot project in the first two months of the reform show that the impact of the resource tax reforms in Xinjiang on the oil extraction companies has been highlighted for two months. During the first levy period, CNPC Tarim Oilfield Company, Sinopec Northwest Oilfield Company, and Sinopec Henan Oilfield Company Xinjiang Exploration and Development Center paid a total of 198 million yuan in resource taxes, which was calculated from the first five months of this year. The average increase was 162 million yuan, an increase of 444.7%. Previously, some experts estimated that according to Xinjiang's production of 25.18 million tons of crude oil in 2009, the resource tax paid by the oil extraction enterprises would be as high as 5 billion yuan. This "unexpected wealth" will flow into the pockets of the local government.
However, the resource tax burden on oil is currently not passed on to downstream chemical companies. Recently learned from the Xinjiang Petrochemical Association, resource tax reform has little effect on the local oil chemical industry. Zhao Zhiping, director of the Information and Marketing Department of the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation, analyzed that the impact of Xinjiang's resource tax reform on the downstream chemical industry is not easy to show. First of all, domestic oil prices are internationally linked and will not undergo major adjustments due to rising resource taxes. From the perspective of the current internationalization of oil prices, the increase in costs caused by resource taxes can only be borne by the oil recovery companies themselves. Unless domestic crude oil prices have completely deviated from international oil prices, such deviations are not in line with China’s energy development direction. Second, at present, resource tax reforms have only been implemented in Xinjiang, which has not reached the level of embarrassment for domestic oil production companies. Therefore, there is little chance that the oil-producing companies will transfer the rising cost of resource taxes to the downstream.
Unlike oil exploitation, natural gas extraction has been blessed in this tax reform. Because on June 1st, the natural gas resources tax was calculated at the same time, the country also increased the base price (or first station) of natural gas for each oil and gas field by 230 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters, and the natural gas extraction companies also increased revenue. The price of natural gas for direct supply of natural gas from the Xinjiang Oilfield was adjusted to 1,215 yuan/million cubic meters on June 1st, and was charged at 5% of the resource tax, and 60.75 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters were required, compared with 15 yuan per 1,000 cubic meters before the tax reform. , 3 times more. After June 1, natural gas prices increased 0.23 yuan per cubic meter and the price per 230 cubic meters increased by 230 yuan. After hedging, the gas-producing enterprises not only did not lower their profit margins before the reform of the resource tax, but also increased.
Different from the oil industry chain, the price increase of natural gas immediately caused turbulence in the downstream industries. The gas-head chemical companies agonize. The production costs of gasification and gasification enterprises in Sichuan, such as Chuanhua Chemical Co., Ltd., Lutianhua and Sichuan Meifeng, all increased by hundreds of millions, and their profits shrank by nearly half.
Obviously, natural gas prices can be seen as a preview of the implementation of the resource tax reform nationwide. In other words, if the resource tax reform of oil, gas and coal is promoted throughout the country, the cost pressure on the petrochemical industry will be enormous. Taking oil as an example, according to the calculation of China's oil production of 189.5 million tons and the average price of international crude oil of 75 dollars per barrel in 2009, the resource tax levy will allow China's oil recovery companies to shoulder a burden of 5.2 billion U.S. dollars, paying 550% more. More than 90% of China's oil production industry is monopolized by Sinopec, PetroChina and other companies, and domestic petrochemical raw materials are mainly supplied by them. Liu Yijun, a professor at the China Petroleum University, said that in the long run, although the price of oil is an international linkage, if the resource tax is promoted nationwide, a large number of chemical raw materials products will not rule out the transfer of resource taxes to downstream companies through price increases. From the point of view of the state policy, there is also the desire to promote the downward transfer of the resource tax, because only in this way can the chemical companies be supervised and urged to save resources and do fine work.
However, if other resources such as coal and chemical ore resources are reformed together, the impact on the chemical industry will be unprecedented. The person in charge of the same coal mine in Shanxi Province once estimated that if the coking coal price is 1,500 yuan/ton this year, if the 5% ad valorem tax is imposed, the tax burden will be 9.4 times the current one. Because coal prices are more flexible than oil and gas prices, it may be more direct to pass them downstream.
Both the tax reform and the development of resource tax have obvious benefits to the national economy. Professor Wang Huang of Chengdu University of Technology believes that the benefits of resource tax reform are threefold: First, it will help improve the level of economic development in resource-based regions and promote coordinated regional development. China's mineral resources are concentrated in the relatively backward areas of the central and western regions. As resource taxes are incorporated into local finances, advancing resource tax reforms can change the pattern of interest distribution and promote coordinated regional development. Second, it will help change the extensive economic growth mode and optimize the industrial structure. The resource tax reform can impose higher costs on resource extraction and use, force corporate technological transformation and management innovation, and promote economic growth from relying mainly on increasing the consumption of material resources to relying mainly on scientific and technological progress, improvement of the quality of laborers, and management innovation. Again, it is conducive to the formation of a resource-saving mode of production and living. The direct result of resource tax reform is to curb corporate waste of resources; the indirect result is to increase the price of some of the final products that consume a lot of resources, thereby affecting consumers’ consumer behavior and promoting the conservation of resources of the entire society.
Industry experts also put forward their opinions and suggestions on the future development direction of resource tax reform. Zhao Zhiping analyzed that the ongoing reforms in Xinjiang are accurately called oil and gas tax reforms and cannot be regarded as resource tax reforms in the true sense. The resources involved in the resource tax reform should at least include seven types of resources already listed in the "Provisional Regulations" such as coal and salt, while the types of resources in the Xinjiang pilot do not even include coal that is also energy. China's oil, gas, and coal are three kinds of energy sources that are linked together. The annual coal mining volume of about 3 billion tons is much larger than that of petroleum 189 million tons, and its influence is even more far-reaching. Therefore, if you want to promote the country, there will be great changes in the trial mode of Xinjiang.
There are also people in the industry thinking more about the risk of a comprehensive reform of the next resource tax. Liu Yijun analyzed that under the conditions of market economy, the natural gas price increase should not have caused such a big shock to downstream companies, and raw material prices have risen. However, because of overcapacity, the market price of downstream products is difficult to follow. Therefore, he suggested that the best period for the national tax promotion reform is to resume after the national economy is fully restored and the company has a certain level of anti-risk capability. The initial level of levy should not be too high, and gradually increase to 5% within 2-3 years. . Only in this way can we ensure growth and promote energy conservation.
We also offer Hand Held Wire Stripper and Homemade Wire Strippers.
Maximum Recycling,Money Making Machines.
Now you can remove the plastic coating from your electrical cable wire with very little effort.
Whether it's single or multiple plastic coated electrical cable wire,
the wire stripper can do it safely, economically, and easier than ever before.
Stripping insulation from scrap copper wire and selling it
to a metal recycler is a great way to make some extra money,maximum recycling value.
Manual Wire Stripping Machine
Manual Wire Stripping Machine,Manual Wire Stripper,Manual Cable Stripping Machine,Hand Held Wire Stripper,Homemade Wire Strippers
TAIZHOU GUANGLONG WIRE STRIPPING MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO.,LTD , http://www.scrap-wire-stripper.com