Can Rudd dig himself out of a super mining tax hole?

B says:

06:24pm | 26/05/10

You are obviously aqn ardent Lib supporter or just don’t know enough about the facts behind the mining industry!!
I have inside information and personal experience, and taxing the companies who actually dig the big holes in our country, and the amount they will be taxed nowhere compensates what they ripped off the Australian taxpayers for 12 years under the Howard Government!  One mining boss alone earnt/was paid $24.5million in 2003 for his Personal wage!  The company he runs was also paid $1.70 for every $1 spent on exploration, and faked assay tests to continue bogus exploration until suchj a time that gold prices were high, then suddenly decided the real assays done 3 years earlier were correct!  Work out tht little packet at $30million p/a.  Go Kev, screw them back!

Tony says:

12:05am | 27/05/10

B - Haha..you are funny, have you even looked at how this tax works? Do you realise that any salaries (ie the $24.5m in 2003 from your ‘inside information’) would be taken as an expense against earnings before the tax is even levied? Also the pumped up exploration costs will be deductible under this new tax. All this tax will do is encourage the sort of behaviour you are complaining about. PS I’m an accountant in the mining industry and know exactly how much tax the big boys pay and the effects this tax will have on future projects in Australia, ie they will struggle to get finance to get off the ground.

Pete from Sydney says:

08:53am | 26/05/10

Juju…mining companies bandinf together for the ‘good’ of the country is a bit like cigarette companies banding together for the ‘good’ of smokers…self interest rules. Marius, Twiggy et al are doing okay, and are under-paying on tax…time to ante up boys…like the rest of us

Evan Findlay says:

09:03am | 26/05/10

Juju, how is that different from the wasteful Howard government and their unsustainable middle class welfare? And Tony Abbott is no different with his incredibly reckless paid parental leave and his pipe dream of paying $10,000 to stay at home mothers. Most economist’s and tax experts are getting behind the governments tax reforms because they look to the future. But we still have the economically incompetent and policy inert, Dr No, standing in the way of reform.

jack says:

09:03am | 26/05/10

jack says
I am only going to say one thing,  have any of you out there got kids, if this new tax goes through my children will be $108.000.00 better off on retirement and the mining companys will still be digging up our products
                                                    JACJ G

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:14am | 26/05/10

Juju :  Right on the money. !  When Rudd became Prime Minister , it was akin to Elmer Fudd being presented with rows and rows of knobs ,  switches, levers , buttons and flashing lights.  Woo woo woo !
Now we are about to be left with a huge debt and a whole lot of mega-huge holes in the ground along with a gi-normas recession to boot.
The idology espoused by this Labor federal failure is almost a communistic leaning in it’s approach to mineral resourse profits.  Basically they seek the redistribution of profit from the mining industry away from the investor who risks capital , the share holder who risks his superannuation and savings , the allied industry which supports mining and employs thousands of Australians , and redirect those profits to government coffers .  If the ultimate aim of this principle was to benefit all Australians , then one could take some comfort , even with the communistic application of ideology , but this is not the Rudd goal.
Rudd is desperate to claim the ” fiscal conservative ” label , and to gain that distinction , he has to refill the nations coffers , offset the massive debt he has dragged Australia into during the Krazy Kev lunatic economic decisions over the past 2.5 years.
Its all about winning the looming election .  The Prime Minister has dug a deep hole for himself and his Labor government . They are now in the throes of desperation , looking for a way out of the mess they are in.

Sherlock says:

09:46am | 26/05/10

The Rudd government has been running a class war since the day they took office. Their strategy has been attack the perceived rich (or the actual rich) since day one. Australians who earn over some arbitrary set figure have seen this government attack them. The health insurance rebate is the latest weapon i the left’s class war.

Labor thought the RSPT would be just another tax on the rich or more simply a tax on “other people” that everybody will support. What they got wrong is that Australia has moved on since the Hawke/Keating years and many Australians now realise the benefits to all Australians of a healthy and profitable industry.

Many Australians see this attack on this particular healthy and profitable industry as a threat to their lifestyles.

It’s yet another policy that’s been done on the back of an envelope and hasn’t been properly thought through. The problem is that Rudd has put his governments political future on the line and after the ETS realises that it would be political suicide to back down yet again.

So the question that every single Australian should be asking themselves is that will the Labor party do the best thing for all Australians or will they do the best thing for their re-election chances?

What do you think?

Ryan says:

10:51am | 26/05/10

@Evan Findlay : as I recall that “wasteful Howard government” returned a substantial surplus AND payed off Labors last spending spree WITHOUT overtaxing our businesses. Your argument is ridiculously hilarious though I will admit.

watchingwithinterest says:

12:13pm | 26/05/10

I do not have a problem with the mining companies paying more tax.  But dropping a tax bomb without prior consultation is no way to preserve the stable economic investment environment of this country. 
I do have a problem with this government raising more revenue through taxation and that is because to date they haven’t been able to demonstrate that they can spend our tax dollars wisely and obtain value for money.  People talk about middle class welfare well all I can say is that i bet those people who received this money got better value for money than this government has demonstrated they can achieve.
This government needs to wise up that if you want to introduce reform you need to put in the hard yards to design, consult and negotiate the way forward.  Not just come up with some thought, announce it and then worry about the detail later and then tell the nation that its our way or the highway. Australia deserves better

Evan Findlay says:

03:09pm | 26/05/10

Ryan,

If you consider Costello saving 20 billion from 360 billion in tax revenue significant then you are easily pleased and not very serious about accountability. And if you consider a 1.7% tax on 4000 big businesses, equating to over 3 billion dollars a year in tax to pay for a very small section of our community as being economically responsible then I completely understand your logic and understand why you vote Liberal.

notsurprised says:

04:21pm | 26/05/10

Evan, can you substatiate your comment, “Most economist’s and tax experts are getting behind the governments tax reforms because…” So far it is only an off the cuff generalization.

Brad Coward says:

04:49pm | 26/05/10

Strangely Evan….I understand your logic and why you vote Labor….if one can call that logic !

Tony H says:

02:26pm | 26/05/10

You will also find that every single one of the “academics” receives their funding from the governement. Not towing the Liebor govt line = threats of a funding cut.

happy days says:

08:56am | 26/05/10

Lapsed communist are we Evan ah yes things are always better with socialist control of our lives oh well that’s is until the money runs out via tax revenues falling and prices increase but that doesn’t matter nobody has to work and dream of the finer things in life in your labor utopia do they comrade

Darryl Price says:

09:36am | 26/05/10

The levy to fund paid parental leave is to cover the cost of paid parental leave, not help paper over a deficit, or pork barrel a few tax cuts. Pretty straightforward differences I think. (I almost used the word fundamental there, but KR has door-stopped it to death).

centurion48 says:

09:38am | 26/05/10

There are three major problems with the RSPT not including the extremely emotive title and the fact that they pander to the masses about how the people of Australia own the minerals and these big bad mining companies are stealing your wealth.
Firstly, the rebate on royalties is set at the current royalty rate and does not prevent state governments increasing the royalty rate. The federal government cannot stop state governments charging mining companies on tonnages at whatever rate they want. Both BHP and RIO face increases in royalties in Western Australia in addition to the RSPT.
Secondly, the RSPT is to be applied to existing projects that are just now making profits after years and years of huge capital investment. The government is just picking the ripe fruit. Several companies in which I am invested have either paid no dividends or small dividends throughout the early years. I accepted that because I know that the money I invest will eventually pay a reasonable dividend - or at least it would have until this jackbooted government decided to partially nationalise resource companies.
Thirdly, the RSPT seems like a great money spinner at the moment because commodity prices are high. This is not always the case but the government has factored in their cut of the profits based on a golden goose. When commodity prices fall - as they always do - then the government will have to search around for yet another income stream to replace the deficit.
The economists are correct about the theory side of this tax and even the large mining companies agree that parts of it have merit but many parts are just plain stupid and the Labor government will reap what they have sown. My biggest disappointment is that Ken Henry has nailed his colours to the mast and, inevitably, will go down with the ship, HMAS Rudderless.

annie says:

10:22am | 26/05/10

what is really sad is our Fed Govt is being run by an ego nearly all decisions i’m sure have come from Mr Rudd and the najority have been failures. it’s pathetic that the rest of his front bench just follow this maniac. is being the government of the day so important that you can let this mans ego drive our country and its standing down.

Evan Findlay says:

10:25am | 26/05/10

Centurion 48. So the Liberal government in Western Australia is increasing it’s financial royalties from the mining sector whilst it’s federal counterpart argues with the government over it’s attempt to extract a fair price for our resources. I’m not sure the Liberals know what they want. I would assume that their could be changes to the rate of royalties in a genuine compromise, but it would appear that the West Australian government has failed to listen to the mining industry as their preference is for the Rent Resource Tax, after all they were the ones that made the submission to the Henry review.

Your third point only proves that the reform policy works both ways. When commodity prices fall, as they inevitably do, mining companies will pay less tax as the tax is only applied to profits and not volume. That is a win for the mining companies but I do not hear them spruiking the positives, only their perceived negatives.

And finally to your second point, “I know the money I have invested will eventually pay a reasonable dividend.” Do you have a crystal ball Centurion? Are you a financial guru that knows which mines will reap a profit and those that won’t? Do you have a sixth sense for these things or do you use a metal detector? I find it highly presumptious that you know which investments are going to provide you with dividends. That’s part and parcel of the stockmarket, there are no guarantees!

Evan Findlay says:

10:54am | 26/05/10

So happy days, my little fascist friend. Should we just fire sale all of our national interests? Should we just give them away and not expect a fair return for our resources. I would suggest that you do some research about communism/socialism, there is a distinction by the way, because I would hardly associate the desire to extract the best possible price for a commodity as being a communist ideal, more a economically responsible ideal.

Personally I see no benefit for me in this legislation other than increasing our productivity. The benefits to the nation and the economy are an increase in infrastructure spending, something that was ignored under the previous government and a lowering of the company tax, something that was also ignored under the previous government.

I would suggest that you are intimidated by change and frightful of reform. You would prefer to stay in the 1950’s, where Mr Abbott would like to take us. The Howard government started off well with it’s economic reform but was then flailed and spooked by your ilk who have little understanding for the need for continual reform, as evidenced by the economic neanderthal that now leads the opposition.

Phil says:

11:50am | 26/05/10

Evan

I dont think the mining companies mind paying a bit more, its the quantum that they have the sh1ts about.

Also the new tax gives a taxpayer quarantee so bad projects are profit at the expense of good ones to the tune of 40%.

Does any super fund you are a member of in invest in mines? Or do you belong to one of the less regulated industry ones?

My super fund has invested in a mining company which has yet to start mining. I invested a long time ago when the shares were just released, have held onto them for 7 years without a return. Now a return looks likely, it will be taxed. It is called taking a calculated risk, it is one of the only ways to get ahead in life. Like starting a business, buying a home, investing is the same, it takes time, hard work and hopefully it pays off.

In response to your claim to centurian, I made my enquiries, and yes I feel a return on investment and increase in share price will come. Many start up companies float to gain cash needed for exploration and testing. If the testing which in the case of those I have invested in comes good then mining will follow, which will result in sales, cash and profits. My shares have increased massively in price eve n in the current downturn, but I am looking at long term not short term.

If they made the tax on all new projects, and at a lesser rate or the 40% above say 15% then the mining companies would have less to complain about. Other nations would be laughing at us, all so we can build inflated price school buildings, and waste a few billion on insulation, to name but a few.

The money they are taking off these companies will mean less money into retirement, thus adding to the pension requirements of many Australians.

Rudd’s problem now is that if he gives in or changes it completely, he looks week, gives the opposition campaign fodder of a policy on the run desperate government, and if he doesnt then the opposition will be better funded than labor were last time bankrolled by a dodgy union campaign.

Evan Findlay says:

09:11am | 26/05/10

Acker, by your theory we can then assume that it’s a bit rich to be labeling Mr Costello a competent treasurer as he had a wealth of tax revenue from a broad base tax system and a once in a lifetime resources boom and no GFC to contend with.

acker says:

10:56am | 26/05/10

@Evan….Costello left Swan an economy in surplus; I’m sure Swans 1st budget in 2008 probably stated a surplus, but possibly at the end of that year 30/06/2009 it was in deficit, others might have the figures. Swan might never be Treasurer of an Australian budget year surplus…

Marky says:

12:58pm | 26/05/10

Evan, who brought in a broad based consumption tax? Yes…that’s right… Costello

Evan Findlay says:

01:56pm | 26/05/10

Marky, That was my point. Mr Costello brought in a broad base tax which in turn increased his tax revenue. Did you even bother reading my comment? And by the way before you jump to conclusions, I’m all for a GST. My point to Acker was that you can’t label Mr Costello a good economist simply because he had untold billions rolling into government coffers. Swan had, and still has, a declining tax revenue whereas Mr Costello have the good fortune of a mining boom and a tax policy that increased his share of the pie. I was merely trying to point out to Acker that it goes both ways.

AC says:

04:06pm | 26/05/10

Evan,

Common sense says that if you have less money to spend, you should spend it wisely. Contrast that to what the government has done with our hard earned cash. Reckless spending with no planning and taking the “who cares about value for money cos we have a GFC” approach is no-one’s fault but the Rudd government’s.

Pete from Sydney says:

10:33am | 26/05/10

Yep sure as hell, two reasons, one he’s being crucified by the media, and secondly the bloke running against him is a dud and a liar or stupid, and his senior ministers may not be liars, but they are duds…if Abbott runs this country we are seriously buggered….

Thomas G says:

11:15am | 26/05/10

Pete from Sydney.  How will Abbott ‘bugger’ us?

Come on… walk the talk.  Specifics.

Super D says:

11:38am | 26/05/10

Pete you really did make me laugh.  Rudd being crucified by the media - what a laugh, he’s been a media darling for years.  If they’ve turned on him now its because he is doing something monumentally stupid - which he is.

John A Neve says:

12:56pm | 26/05/10

Super D,
Just what “monumentallyl stupid” thing is the government proposing?
Would you rather increase the GST, tax on petrol, maybe alcohol or better still we could have some cut backs. Health, education or we could follow Greece and slash wages.

Come on Super D, tell us what you would do?

Super D says:

02:07pm | 26/05/10

The monumentally stupid thing that the government is proposing is to make the budget more pro-cyclical.

To take the position that Australia should garner some long term benefits from the mining boom is reasonable though the governments proposals do not achieve this.  They are taking cyclical profits and using them to fund recurrent spending.  Recurrent spending should only be funded by recurrent income. 

What would I do?  Well for one I wouldn’t apply a new taxation regime to existing projects.  Investors are entitled to certainty when they make investment decisions and should not be penalised after the fact.

Secondly I wouldn’t use dodgy second rate statistics to support a ridiculous policy.

In answer to what would I do?  I wouldn’t have got us into this sort of financial debacle in the first place by wasting money on insulation and overpriced school constructions.

Though raising the GST accompanied with offsetting cuts to company and income taxes and increases in transfer payments (pensions/unemployment etc) is a sensible policy for any government.

James Y says:

02:30pm | 26/05/10

Or the one thing you and you ilk never mention Neve - try and increase the GDP by improving infrastructure and decreasing impediments to business which is the SOLE driver of GDP in the nation.

You lot make me laugh - you just don’t it do you.  Tax and spend, tax and spend thats all you f’n understand.

Socialism - the creed of spite and envy.  Sadly, this cancer still lives in many of the hearts of posters here and is riddled in the ALP.

Gruff says:

02:47pm | 26/05/10

John A Neve :
In respons to your question “Just what monumentally stupid thing is the government proposing?”, I would suggest that hobbling the nation’s biggest export industry and a huge employer in order to subsidise less efficient industries and fund “big government” overspending is monumentally stupid.  I work in a business that provides technical and strategic decision support services to the mining industry. We have already had clients put projects on hold because of this. Contrary to popular misconception, there is a lot more to the resource industry than just “holes in the ground”.  It is not “easy money” for these mining companies. They put in a huge amount of work to get these projects right and to run them efficiently and shareholders stump up their own cash to fund them. Partially nationalising the rewards for someone else’s hard work and investment is morally repugnant. If the socialists want the rewards, then get “big government” to stump up the cash to set up these projects and put the work in to make them run efficiently.

John A Neve says:

03:48pm | 26/05/10

Super D,
Says “investors are entitled to certainty”, since when? Buying and selling shares is a gamble and always has been.
Raising the GST cannot be done without the agreement of all tha states and I am not sure the general public would like it either.
What is the point in raising the GST (that’s if you could) and then “offsetting company anf income tax”? 
That sound like the old pollie ploy of giving with one hand and taking with the other!!  When are you standing for parliament Super D?

John A Neve says:

04:01pm | 26/05/10

James Y,
I find your talk of improving “infrastructure” funny. Tell us what infrastruture did the coalition improve over the last twelve years?

As for the Labor government, much to my disgust, they seem little better than the coalition was!!!  Still once they settle in they may improve, unlike the coalition who settled in then fell asleep giving us twelve years of stagnation.

Super D says:

06:16pm | 26/05/10

John, by “Investors are entitled to certainty” I mean companies making investment decisions, not traded markets.  You may recall when capital gains tax was introduced pre-1985 assets were CGT exempt.  A similar grandfathering should occur with mining projects.

As for raising the GST and reducing other taxes and increasing payments this is indeed a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other at implementation.  It does however provide incentives for earning income and saving over consumption as well as broadening the tax base.

The current governments CPRS scheme with all its compensation for low income earners is a timely example.

Oh and I don’t have the ego to stand for parliament.

W says:

01:33pm | 26/05/10

This is the most precise comment I ever read.

James Y says:

10:31am | 26/05/10

No tax is progressive!  Great spin.

marie says:

11:31am | 26/05/10

Which is hardly so very surprising,
What a funny old fellow is Kevin !!

James Y says:

11:08am | 26/05/10

Abbott is digging himself a hole so he can get some of the benefits of the new mining tax!

When people can spin that a regressive tax on our leading industry is ‘progressive’ then its time to get off the H.

Hamish says:

01:05pm | 26/05/10

Steve,

How is singling out our most internationally competitive and profitable industry for extra taxation common sense?

I would have thought it’s the complete opposite.

Steve says:

03:10pm | 26/05/10

How is, as an owner of a finite resource, that can only be dug up and sold once, making sure I get a fair and reasonable price for it, in any way, a silly idea?  If you think digging up our resources and letting Rio Tinto executives make all the cash, then you’re either a Rio Tinto mining executive, or, respectfully, an intellectual drop out.

If Australia is going to be dug up and sold off, damn right we deserve to get a good price for it. What the heck are we going to do when its all gone otherwise?

BTW -
I bet all the people complaining about the current debt too, all sent their stimulus payments back to the government. :D

John A Neve says:

10:57am | 26/05/10

Thomas G,

Can you please explain “a Soviet style Socialist tax” for me?
Sadly I admit I have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Thomas G says:

11:12am | 26/05/10

Yes.  A tax on a specific sector or industry that is over and above the tax paid by the rest of the taxpayers.  Based on the logic that ‘they are rich so we will tax them even more’. 

Failed eastern bloc nations were riddled with such taxes.  Check out the poverty, ghost towns and rust belts of Poland and surrounding nations to see what the outcome was.

John A Neve says:

12:39pm | 26/05/10

Thomas G,

Based on your discription don’t all taxes fall into into the “Soviet style Socialist tax” category?

Both industry and personal taxes are all over the place, 126 of them and no two the same!!

Come on Graham, try again. I’ll bet my tax and yours are different.

Rob r Charteris says:

07:49pm | 26/05/10

Thomas G says:11:12am; so explain to me how this tax is diferent than the whopping great chunk of tax the government take on my overtime (my super profit) which is about .48 cent to the dollar. Isn’t this like the Soviet style Socialist tax your whinging about??? whats the difference eh guru.

James Y says:

10:45am | 26/05/10

Agree somewhat Kelvin but remember if we had a ‘Fraser’ Style Liberal such as Turnbull - we would now have an ETS based on the AGW scam and a potential Mining tax as a double whammy on the economy.  We would be heading toward third world.

Also Fraser is ultra-critical but he was a weak PM with nowhere near the success or popularity of John Howard.  He comes across as an embittered old fool.

But yes with all the ammo the Libs have got on this appalling train wreck of a govt they should romp in the election and it would be a disgrace if they didn’t.

Moggy says:

02:45pm | 26/05/10

Kelvin…....the media destroyed Costello’s creds & were slavering to get Rudd into power, because it would make more profits than backing a good, solid but boring Howard government. The media got us into this mess by convincing us that Rudd was the messiah. Now of course they’re covering their tracks by turning on their plastic messiah & pretending they had nothing to do with getting this idiot into power. Maybe Rudd should super tax the media barons!!

notsurprised says:

04:43pm | 26/05/10

Nicely put Andrew, and with the right dose of sarcasm. The short-sightedness is astounding.

Tim says:

12:02pm | 26/05/10

Martin G,
Provide links to these “Facts” please.
This tax will affect different mining companies differently depending on how profitable they are, so to list one % tax figure is wrong.

Evan Findlay says:

12:13pm | 26/05/10

Martin G, even mining companies have backed away from the figure of 58% because they could not substantiate it. And if you bothered to do any research, any investment house or market analysis will tell you that any company, whether it be mining or property, that comes out and states that they will not proceed with a project that is currently not under way will have no bearing on the share price. Only once a project begins and a profit or loss envisaged that the share price will reciprocate.

Futhermore, having just watched a segment on the midday news about the Rio AGM, it was refreshing to see Rio shareholders agreeing with Mr Rudd and his Rent Resource Tax. It would seem that the only one’s objecting are rusted on Liberals and their CEO buddies!

Hamish says:

01:12pm | 26/05/10

Tim,

I’ll give you the link. It’s quoted in The Australian here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wayne-swan-mining-tax-claims-undermined/story-e6frg6nf-1225870782755

Source is the ATO. Geez, who would have thought to ask them? I wonder why Swanny and the K-Rudd decided to use some obscure academic paper from the US rather than the guys who actually collect the money? I’m sure their reasons were totally innocent.

Are these ‘facts’ good enough, or would you rather rely on Swanny and K-Rudd’s ‘facts’?

Jemima says:

01:34pm | 26/05/10

Mining earnings have risen about five fold in the last few years and the Government is right to change the arrangements so that the mining companies pay a fair price for the products they are taking.  Ten years ago the Govt., received $1 in $3, now it is $1 in $7.  Seems fair but facts never get in the way of a chance to propagandise do they.  As a matter of interest, Citigroup have advised to BUY Rio And BHP stocks.  Maybe search out some facts first.

Hamish says:

01:55pm | 26/05/10

Jemima,

I’m curious as to where your figures come from? Is $1 in every $3 profit? I assume it must be, but the $1 in $7 is simply wrong according to the ATO. Their figures suggest that the total government (state and federal) tax take from miners last year was 41.3% of profits so more like $4 in every $10. Actually much more than $1 in every $3.

Not all of this goes to the feds (as the state royalties are included), but this new tax has to rebate this money to the states and still leave $9 billion extra left over in 2013-2014. So Evan, you may be right about 58% being wrong, in fact you probably are as the economic cycle changes and who knows where it will be in five years. As part of this tax the government could actually end up paying the miners money, so the government could actually be getting negative percentages of profit, it could be -58%. I guess Labor hope they’ll be out of power if that ever actually happens.

Martin G says:

02:09pm | 26/05/10

Jemima, your figures are blatantly false. The current effective tax rate is the equivalent of 1 in 2.5 including state royalties, not 1 in 7. Sounds like you have been suckered in by that American student’s draft paper as well.

Evan Findlay, you’ll find the 58% figure to be well quoted and the mining companies have not backed away from it at all. Feel free to use Google, like Tim should have done.

Tim, I quote from the Australian using ATO figures (why did the Govt not do this in the first place?:

“The ATO data said miners paid an effective rate of 27.8 per cent, which rose to 41.3 per cent with the inclusion of state royalties.”

Thomas G says:

02:24pm | 26/05/10

Jemima.

Earnings have risen due to the billions invested by OS investors producing better mines more ore and more revenue.

This tax will result in less OS investment, less ore and less revenue for govt and super holders.  OS investment will go for the best returns every time.  This tax will stunt our mining industry and result in a worse outcome for all Australians

Ask any investment house on the planet.  This tax will be a disaster.

Tim says:

03:08pm | 26/05/10

Hamish,
no mention of an average of 58% tax with this new tax in that link.
I think i’ll believe the treasury estimates.
http://www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/FAQs.aspx

Hamish says:

04:25pm | 26/05/10

Sorry Tim, I thought you were disputing the 41% figure, my apologies. That link you have posted suggests that the effective tax rate on 25% profits would be 50%. Would you seriously be happy with that? You know other companies would be paying only a flat rate of 28% no matter how high the profits.

I accept that miners should pay more tax on account of taking finite resources out of the ground, but almost double the rate at only 25% profit? That’s far too high. I mean, resources aren’t worth much in the ground.

Plus, it means that if world prices tank and average taxes across the industry fall to 10%, the feds will actually be sending cheques out.

antiperspirant says:

02:21pm | 26/05/10

Bruhahahahahahaha.

Clive Hamilton is one of the signatories.

Read here http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364

That is Clive saying we should consider stopping democratic processes so devasting the threat of climate is.

And you are happy he is described as a “leading economist”?

LAW. He is a rabid greenie that hates any form of government apart from his own ideals and wants to trash the capitalist system world wide and return to gaia worship. (A bit over the top but not too far from it)

He was the isiot that ran for Costello’s old seat. Rememebr? The great green hope. Remember all the talk about him winning?

Didn’t go so well. That is one of them. And this die hard left wing green now wants to support a policy that places Australia’s mining as the highest taxed in the world. Well gosh…hold the presses. Newsworthy is it?

Then we have John Quiggan who warned that climate change really will be the end of the world and was a desperate ETS supporter.

Oh and John Langmore ex Labor pollie.

Really look deeper son. Smell the coffee.

It is a group ogf like minded individuals on the far left of politics who would be happy if we smashed the miners with a 90% flat rate tax regardless of consequences.

Research a bit son. Then you won’t be so happy. It is the same grasping at straws that led them to believe a paper based on insufficient sample sizes.

Labor is lying deliberately again and will use anything to spin their way out of a policy black hole.

Have a look through the names on the paper. The descriptor of them in that article you linked is so far wrong it is a joke.

Hamish says:

01:29pm | 26/05/10

Total government tax take from miners last year was 41.3% of profits (source: ATO - linked in my post above), so ‘Australians’ do get something out of it. What is a fair share? Considering you’ve done jack-s**t to help take the minerals out of the ground or sell the minerals, I would have thought 40% of profits was more than fair.

Arthur George Manche' says:

03:44pm | 26/05/10

[arthur - a couple of ground rules - play the ball, avoid name calling, and no capital letters. Think of it like a chat in the street. Mods]

nosthow says:

05:14pm | 26/05/10

@Hamish - so hamish you are a friend of huge Mining Companies are you ? How sad. Lang Hancock years ago flew over iron ore deposits in the Kimberleys and said “its all sitting there for someone, anyone to dig up and sell”. How true Hamish and it all belongs to Australians and we deserve our fair share as the government says of our minerals.

TC says:

11:31pm | 26/05/10

Perhaps Nosthow if you want your “fair share” you should go and get it? Or do you propose a “fair share” for doing absolutely nothing?

James Y says:

02:19pm | 26/05/10

W and why does some of the money flow OS?  Because those OS people pay their money to enable Australian mining companies to find ore and make profits.  The government contributes ZERO.  Risk and return - simple economics.

I think the government should pay investors out for lost investment money from failed mines!

This tax is socialism 101.

Moggy says:

03:11pm | 26/05/10

I agree with you DJ! And it’s the media who decides who to colour & present in the best light. It was the media who elected Rudd & why?? PROFITS! A change of goverment always sells more media coverage. I was in Perth last week & everybody over there including Labor stalwarts are up in arms.  WA has a woeful lack of water these days & the mining industry is taking over from wheat & wool production. On the other hand maybe the mining companies could well afford to pay a little more tax, but this 40% slug smells of desperation on Rudd’s behalf. It’a also being seen in WA as a slap on the head for Barnett because he refused to sign up for Rudd’s next debacle, health!

notsurprised says:

04:11pm | 26/05/10

Too right DJ, there is not enough emphasis on substance over style when it comes to politics. It would be far more reassuring for the debate to be between major parties who actually had initiative and an idea how to lead a country.

antiperspirant says:

10:03pm | 26/05/10

Quite possibly the stupidest thing have read on here that was not written by Christian Real.

Spin and fear from the miners. try the government using dodgy research, and then holding out a paper signed by Clive Hamilton. That the government even gives it the time of day is an embarrassment.

TC says:

11:55pm | 26/05/10

And that’s exactly why a lot of people dont take you very seriously mate. The other countries will be delighted with the reduction in competition

Rob r Charteris says:

07:52pm | 27/05/10

If you think countries would look at a successful RSPT and not want to get more for their own resources as an option or look at implementing something similar, I think you would be kidding yourself. And if they do want to burn themselves then we will win in the long run.

Rob r Charteris says:

10:37am | 28/05/10

T.C. I’m sure a lot of liberal stooges dont take me seriously, I dont take them seriously either, nor do I care.