The mining pie is more of a magic pudding

mick says:

07:56am | 23/11/11

The mining tax returns 19% of profits to Australians.  The other 81% goes straight offshore into the pockets of foreign investors.  The mining industry also gets heaps of Australian taxpayer funded subsidies including diesel rebates.

It is about time the Liberal Party and its stooges stopped doing the bidding of the mega rich mining companies and decided if they were Australians or otherwise.  We need people in this country who look after each other, not wealthy foreign investors.

The Labor government has done what is in the interests of all Australians.  It should have increased the mining tax a lot more than it did and if we didn’t have an Opposition married to to big business then it could and would have so.

Well done Labor.  It might actually vote for you next election.

Phil says:

08:01am | 23/11/11

Well said little Joe. I like many dont have an issue in companies paying a little more taxes where they can and the mining industry could be a case in point, however this badly designed tax which according to Twiggy Forest will hurt up and coming and developing miners (not his) yet allow massive tax breaks for big miners, who effectively get to depreciate the mine twice for various tax purposes, will not what many of the sheeplde believe they are getting as most listen to sound bites of 30 seconds and many probably think they will get a pay rise on July 1 next year cause of this tax.

Further why not release details of meetings between the big three, who have allowed the Australian public to be hoodwinked again by this government. To not release treasury modelling is further proof that this lot of misfits are no good for the country.

What gets me going is how The Punch allows such crap to be published. The mining tax is not funding the majority of superannuation increases. The employer is, so its taking from the businesses most of which are doing it tough, and will incrimentally increase the contributions. Technically the only super increases funded will be public servants many of whom are already on a much higher super scheme.

The mining taxes will not be shared amongst fellow Australians. I doubt anyone self employed will see a cent, except for costing them more in everything else, like employees super etc.

If one says that ultimately 3% extra super on your $ 30,000 a year makes all the difference then one should have studied a bit harder at school and spplied themselves. FFS a mower man can net $ 1000 a week if they apply themselves and for stuff all capital imput.

Further the government is looking at the contributions taxes and me thinks will ultimately change the taxation regime on super contributions and withdrawals to further balance the books as needed, rather than cut the largess.

I have heard a figure of 11 billion to be raised over the first 4 years, FFS this government wasted more than that in the 2 years after the GFC on ill thought out and delivered programs. Its not hard to see that bar Mrs Rudd not one of the losers in power has ever run anything substantial in their lives, at least nothing for profit. My 11 year old could run a union, given a credit card for personal usage.

mick says:

08:41am | 23/11/11

Your view is a very narrow focus Phil.  The mining tax, like all other taxes, makes its way through the economy in time.  I mean even if more superannuation did only benefit well paid public servant remember that these people then spend that money, maybe some of it in your business.

The real issue is that the wealth which the mining boom generates is not the property of overseas investors.  Australia needs to get a fair share and this is where I am coming from.  The big business and liberal party stooges on this site support those who seek to take all and leave a few crumbs for Australians and this is just plain wrong.  Those people need to emigrate as they act contrary to the national interest….........am I waving a flag, hope not.

What the Labor government did after the GFC was in some cases poor.  But if it had done nothing, as the Liberal Party would have done had it been in office, then Australians would have felt the same pain felt in the US.  Personally I would have liked to have seen more solar collectors on roofs rather than batts in ceilings.

We all hate tax.  Unfortunately we need roads to drive on and hospitals if we get sick.  A more efficient use of taxes is what probably is the more pertinent issue.

In the end be happy that Tone Abbott is not our prime minister.  I fear that one is coming and those who are so quick to attack the current government may have rue the day they put a big business funded government into power.

Phil says:

10:04am | 23/11/11

Mick you are missing my point. I dont as a general rule have an issue with a mining based tax. BUT and this is the big BUT our consitution states that the minerals in the ground are the property of the states not the commonwealth. This is why there are state based mining royalties which this government has sought to cap robbing the states of a great source of income increases. Then Swanny holds a gun to their heads if they want to incease the taxes. Its just that this government has squandered billions in waste that they feel the need to rape and pillage this mining sector of the economy.
The make up of the tax is what I dont like. As Andrew Twiggy Forest stated, smaller miners, one of which he once was are paying the majority of this tax in the first 3 years and most big miners, including him are basically paying nothing. That will hurt investment in many companies which are owned by your average aussie, not foreign multinationals and foreign governments. Please explain how that makes sense!!
As for big business taking all the spoils, if many of lifes underachievers put a bit more into their work, took the odd risk, then they could also have the funds to be rich. See I am not rich, I earn a great income, but am not rich, but I dont for one minuite begrudge anyone who works hard and is successful from making a dollar and spending it how they think. As most super funds invest in mining companies, then a lesser profit will also hurt average Australians. What about if the mining boost slows dramatically. It is highly possible that the asian thirst for our minerals could stagger or falter in years depending on US and European defaults. If and when that happens this government will regret putting the brakes on things as will the sheeple who accept the BS sprouted forth by them.
What you and many others fail to realise is that the super increase will be the final straw that breaks the camels back for many businesses, so whilst some will get the extra 3% over a few years, many people will lose jobs cause the companies they worked for went belly up.

dovif says:

10:14am | 23/11/11

mike

learn some history of the mining industry in Australia before commenting.

BHP was about 85% owned by Australians, they then merged with Billiton and became a much larger company. So instead of BHP owning 100% of the BHP business, the shareholders swapped 50% of the BHP business for 50% of the Billiton business

So BHP’s Australian shareholders used to own 100% of BHP, they now own 50% of BHP and 50% of Billiton…. Thus the tragedy that BHP is majoritily foreign owned. We swapped 50% of BHP for a more diversed company. Australians had not lost out

So when the ALP government tries to convince us that their budget deficit should be patch up by mining profit of foreigner. It is just a lie to fool the gullible. BHP and Rio Tinto still have head offices in Australia, employs thousands of Staff in Australia, and make big contribution to out airline and logistic industry and kepy us out of the GFC

The ALP should thank these people, but when you caused a blackhole in the budget, because of fiscal incompetance, you have to look for a scapegoat to fill it ..... Greedy foreigners seem to be the ALP’s scapegoat

acotrel says:

07:18am | 23/11/11

@Sony
‘Dishonesty and lies from our totalitarian socialist thieves.’

Doesn’t Godwin’s law extend to this sort of comment ?

Nathan says:

07:54am | 23/11/11

What is with you and the word Socialist, we are hardly a socialist state at all and it is simply put a stupid thing to say have a look at the link and see if Australia is not on there. (yes i know its wikipedia but i am open to be proven wrong)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Diddley says:

09:40am | 23/11/11

FMG head of government relations Julian Tapp told a parliamentary committee into the mining tax that the company had not yet paid any company tax
“We have not cut a corporate tax cheque to date, no,” Mr Tapp said.

20 billion dollar company has been exporting iron ore for years and has not paid one cent in tax.
Have you paid any tax?

Sony B Goode says:

09:50am | 23/11/11

Lefties, progressives, democratic socialist, socialist, communists all the same, just a matter of degree of violence they will use to push the same cause of more government, more taxes, less liberty and less prosperity and progress.

All overt or covert totalitarians. This is historical fact not opinion.

mick e mause says:

10:12am | 23/11/11

His first words are “It’s no secret, many Australians are doing it tough” and so what does the mining tax bring to people? nothing really maybe more money for governments to send overseas in aid to countries who dislike us, or more money to the UN for climate change quangos. You can bet we wont see any of it. And please no spin about helping small business and more super, employees will pay for it in the end. All this mob and the Rudd government has done in 4 years is bring in a large number of taxes that yes Matt will ensure we keep doing it tough. what a load of spin you weave and unfotunatly most of the Journos seem to be fully paid up members of the ALP, and our people funded TV station has been taken over by Marxists. Please give us an election soon.

RyaN says:

10:50am | 23/11/11

@Nathan: Zimbabwe isn’t listed there either I guess under Gillard we would fit into the same category.

PTom says:

09:35pm | 23/11/11

“The role of government is to enable wealth creation not prevent it. The sooner you socialist fascist totalitarians work that out the sooner the public might start voting for you again.”
That is not the role of government. But if your a capitalist go ahead support a tax on the cost of production because that is what you are doing when you support royalties.

acotrel says:

07:11am | 23/11/11

‘If you are an employee on a package, this legislation just gave you a wages decrease, ie more of your package just went to superannuation’

Nice try, but doesn’t it mean that now we can reduce our salary sacrifice payments ?
Thanks for the giggle, your spurious argument really tickled me !

acotrel says:

07:16am | 23/11/11

Yeah, things are really crook ! - I’ll have to go out to lunch with my flash tart to cheer up.
I must be very strange but the MRRT makes me feel more optimistic than I have since the GFC struck, and decimated my superannuation !

TimB says:

07:30am | 23/11/11

I’m fairly certain that not everyone is making a salary sacrifice into superannuation Acotrel.

You should look into that spurious argument thing yourself.

mick e mause says:

11:44am | 23/11/11

Enjoy your lunch Acco unfortunately even under the best case scenario the MRRT will a minimal but negative impact on mining stocks into the future the worst case scenario witha Chinese downturn could be disastrous for super.

glenm says:

12:43pm | 23/11/11

Acotrel , not many of my 25 yr old employees on $50k /annum salary sacrifice to Superannuation.  While the increase may be a good thing for them in the future, it really is incorrect for the government to claim the mining tax will pay for this change. Dotif is completely correct, and if your not on a package the chance of a future take home pay increase is unlikely given that employers have just had 3% added to thier staffing costs.

glenm says:

01:18pm | 23/11/11

news just in Bill Shorten explains…......
” Employers, not the government, will have to meet the cost of the government’s pledge to lift compulsory superannuation from 9 to 12 per cent.

But the Superannuation Minister, Mr Shorten, said employees would ultimately pay the price in slower wages growth over the seven year phase-in period.”

finally the truth from the government.

Nathan says:

08:05am | 23/11/11

So the fact that even the mining companies acknowledged they needed to pay more doesn’t count and its just bad policy?  So we shouldn’t tax them just because its made up of mum and dad investor’s, come on now that is a crap reason.

Why should mining companies be able to maximise profits globally on high commodity prices yet as an Australian we see none of it. We own what is being mined not the companies.

This redistribution of wealth can ensure job creation by reinvesting in other industries. That matters more than an effect that might be seen on Superannuation.

Labor has gotten the job done here simple as that

james says:

09:40am | 23/11/11

This government is much lower taxing than the previous Howard government.
That fact is irrefutable.

Sony B Goode says:

09:58am | 23/11/11

Income is not wealth. Redistribution is net wealth destructive. Government is not here to destroy prosperity; the job of government is to enable prosperity.

When you socialist totalitarians grasp this concept come back and see us

dovif says:

08:38am | 23/11/11

Mahhrat

If you have a point post it, if you want to debate a point debate it, here is what I think of Mark’s lies

-The Mining tax has nothing to do with Australian getting a fair share of the mining boom, the MRRT was announce a week after Rudd’s last Budget, and was only there to fill in the massive budget blackhole that the ALP left us.
- Not 1c of the Mining tax proceed is going into Superannuation. If you are on a salary package. You will have a lower wage and more of your package is put into superannuation
- the small business write off is only a deferral of tax and does nothing for small business

This was Mark’s main point on why the Mining tax will be good for Australia, and all of them are hollow. In fact if the ALP did not stuff up the budget and wasted so much money sending cheques to the US/UK/Africa, we would not even need the Mining tax

Mahhrat says:

10:10am | 23/11/11

@dovif - see, that was better written.  And a better argument results!

I don’t get your first point though - why is when it was introduced making any affect important?  The budget black hole was because the ALP spent (I agree, more than it needed to) preventing a recession (which it did).

I would be charging far more in MRRT than the government is - they’re non-renewable resources, and we should be charging market rates for them.  That simple.

PsychoHyena says:

10:46am | 23/11/11

@dovif honestly I would look at salary packaging and head to the next employer who didn’t impose it, at first look it sounds great but when you look further into it you realise that it’s not that great anyway. I’d much rather pay a bit more in tax and get that back at the end of the financial year (kinda like a term deposit really) than take more money home each fortnight.

The Mining tax was announced because it became damned obvious that while the world was collapsing the mining sector was improving, thus indicating that it was either A) getting resources too cheaply or B) extracting resources too quickly for it to be sustainable.

While the mining tax is not going directly into superannuation it is going into tax cuts for small business, which will better enable them to meet the increased super requirements.

Small business write off is a deferral of tax? You mean small business can buy some upgraded equipment and then get that money back, so they get FREE equipment? I’m sorry I just don’t see how that isn’t a help for small business.

Something that Labor has started learning dovif, is that you no longer run a country like a country. You have to run it like a business, so if somebody is using your resources well you make sure they charge you a greater percentage of their profits from on-selling that resource. The Coalition just haven’t quite caught onto that yet.

dovi says:

01:15pm | 23/11/11

Mahhart

Perhaps you should do more research into the Mining industry

a. Miners pays income tax of 30%
b. Miners pays payroll tax of up to 6% of wages paid
c. Miners pays royalties of on average 13% of total income
d. Miners pays land tax
e. Miners will pay the MRRT
f. Miners pays GST

Miners also make investment of billions of dollars and create jobs in Hospitality, Travel and Logistics. If 50-60% is not enough for Australian government, I do not know what would be “market value”

PsychoHyena

Most professionals are paid by salary package, and this is different to salary packaging, which is what you discribed

PTom says:

09:59pm | 23/11/11

dovif,
Royalties are not paid on income. They are paid on the predetermine cost of ore. Example 7% of $250 per ton. Yet the company can then sell for $350 per ton

Miners do not pay exise on fuel.
Miners get refunds on GST like other business.
Not all miners pay MRRT.
What land tax it does not exist.
Miner can claim losses and equipment to get tax deduction.

james says:

10:16am | 23/11/11

The big miners are really crying poor and the sky is falling in.

TimB says:

11:00am | 23/11/11

James, it isn’t okay to take more money from someone simply because they’re more successful than you. That kills the incentive to succeed in this world, leading to a crappier outcome all around.

timthetoolman says:

11:29am | 23/11/11

I agree timmie
If an individual only makes 4 billion instead of 5 billion, that’s a tremendous disincentive to do anything. There is no incentive to work hard.
Might as well go on the dole than settle for 3 billion.

TimB says:

11:43am | 23/11/11

Badger, how many more benefits have flowed through the economy as a result of that individual making $4 billion?

How many more benefits would flow through as a result of him going that extra mile to make $5billion? Maybe that extra mine doesn’t get built. Maybe an investment in a new start-up business doesn’t go ahead. Who knows?

No-one. Because idiots like you decide that more successful a person is, the more they should be gouged by those who couldn’t be bothered making the effort themselves.

Your lazy jealousy makes me sick.

james says:

12:05pm | 23/11/11

81% of that profit is leaving Australia.

Do keep trying champ.

timthetoolman says:

12:18pm | 23/11/11

timmie

I know, what severe hardship that “lost” 1 billion makes.
Might have to settle for the 200 metre yacht instead of the 220 metre yacht.
And all that lost business as the billionaire only fits the 32 rooms in his mansion with 60” plasma units and neglects the cabana down by the 40 metre pool in the back yard.
MRRT hurting the economy by billionaires cutting back on life’s essentials.
. Your partisanship makes me sick.

jf says:

12:30pm | 23/11/11

timthetoolman says:12:29pm | 23/11/11

“If an individual only makes 4 billion instead of 5 billion, that’s a tremendous disincentive to do anything. There is no incentive to work hard.”

You do understand that this tax is on companies not individuals don’t you?

You do understand that companies are made up of shareholders don’t you?

You do understand that those shareholders include the 99% as well as the 1% don’t you?

You do understand that every investor looks for a return commensurate with the risk taken don’t you?

You do understand if their potential return on the relatively risk business of mining does not exceed the return that they can get on a less risky investment that they will take their capital elsewhere don’t you?

You do understand that without capital, companies are not able to operate don’t you?

Sadly, to every one of those questions I suspect not. After all Wayne Swann, to the amusement of every financially literate person in Australia demonstrated that he didn’t when he was explaining version one of this cash grab.

“Might as well go on the dole than settle for 3 billion.”

Companies can’t go on the dole. However, mining workers can. As can all of the people who provide products and services to the mines and mine workers.

jf says:

01:17pm | 23/11/11

timthetoolman says:
“If an individual only makes 4 billion instead of 5 billion, that’s a tremendous disincentive to do anything.”

You do understand that this tax applies to companies and not individuals don’t you?

“There is no incentive to work hard.”

It is nothing to do with incentive to work hard and everything to do with expecting a return on capital that is commensurate with the risk taken. Swan, to his international shame, demonstrated that he didn’t understand this when you was spruiking version one of this tax.

TimB says:

01:33pm | 23/11/11

Again: The miners pay the required tax. They pay the required royalties. They already pay their ‘fair share’.

So James, Badger, what right do you or anyone else have to the results of the hard work of other people?

None. Get your greedy mitts off of other peoples money and go earn your own.

Oink Oink Oink Badger. That’s the sound of you demanding the miners fill up your trough for you.

Oh and be careful when you throw around terms like “partisanship”. You haven’t met an ALP policy you didn’t like.

james says:

02:20pm | 23/11/11

When can only dig it up and sell it once, we should tax it as much as we can.

TimB says:

02:38pm | 23/11/11

“When can only dig it up and sell it once, we should tax it as much as we can.”

A) That’s what the royalty system is for. A charge on actual quantities mined, not simply on ‘profit’ (which can be quite volatile). If you think the royalties are not enough, convince the states to raise the rates.

B) To take your logic to its final conclusion ‘as much as we can tax’, would be 100%. Let’s see how many people are actually willing to dig stuff up at the level of ‘as much as we can get’ taxation. Bet it won’t be many.

Thankfully the Government whilst stupid, isn’t *quite* as stupid as you are.

jf says:

03:06pm | 23/11/11

james says:03:20pm | 23/11/11

“When can only dig it up and sell it once, we should tax it as much as we can.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dMBKgSlUPg

james says:

03:41pm | 23/11/11

TimB

BHP only paid 23.4 % tax on its profits last year.

So yes we should tax them more.

TimB says:

04:44pm | 23/11/11

What is your source James?

I suspect you are twisting figures by calculating tax on gross profit and failing to take into account alowable deductions.  The corporate tax rate is 30% of *net income*. No more, no less. Just like every other company.

If BHP has somehow paid less than this, feel free to report them to the ATO for tax evasion. I suspect you won’t.

Steve Putnam says:

06:06pm | 23/11/11

@ jf You do understand that under the present arrangement mining companies pay royalties whether they make a profit or not?

You do understand that under the MRRT these royalties are returned in full?

You do understand that the Fels Committee found the royalties system to be a dis-incentive to future investment?

In view of your stated concerns about investors looking for “a return commensurate with the risk taken” and their capital going “elsewhere” and “companies (without capital) not being able to operate” could you explain why the MRRT isn’t an improvement on the old system where mining companies paid out whether they were profitable or not….

jf says:

06:06pm | 23/11/11

james says:04:41pm | 23/11/11

TimB

“BHP only paid 23.4 % tax on its profits last year. So yes we should tax them more. “

Well they should have paid 30% on their taxable profit like everyone else. You should let the ATO know because they shouldn’t be able to avoid tax any more than Hoges should.

Alternatively, they may have paid tax on their taxable profit after legitimate expenses; some of that profit may be on profit earned in other jurisdictions and on it goes.

That 30% they pay on their taxable profit also doesn’t include payroll tax, royalties, stamp duty, contributions to infrastructure and community development, development of their own infrastructure capital, land tax, payments to traditional land owners, leave loading and so on.

james says:

09:51pm | 23/11/11

@Jf and TimB

Total taxation expense including royalty related taxation and the predominantly non-cash exceptional items and exchange rate movements described above, was US$7,309 million, representing an effective rate of 23.4 per cent

Pleas explain how Australians are getting good value for the minerals that can only be dug up and sold once?

jf says:

02:21pm | 24/11/11

james says:10:51pm | 23/11/11

“Pleas explain how Australians are getting good value for the minerals that can only be dug up and sold once?”

The minerals are owned by the states not Australians. The states charge royalties.

If you don’t like that, you need to change the constitution.

jf says:

02:25pm | 24/11/11

Steve Putnam says:07:06pm | 23/11/11

“You do understand that under the present arrangement mining companies pay royalties whether they make a profit or not?”

Yes I do. As they should.

“You do understand that under the MRRT these royalties are returned in full?”

That is not true Steve.

“You do understand that the Fels Committee found the royalties system to be a dis-incentive to future investment?”

I do. I also understand that you are convenienty cherry picking the report

“In view of your stated concerns about investors looking for “a return commensurate with the risk taken” and their capital going “elsewhere” and “companies (without capital) not being able to operate” could you explain why the MRRT isn’t an improvement on the old system where mining companies paid out whether they were profitable or not”

I’m not for a moment suggesting that the current system can’t be improved. I’m saying that I don’t believe that this tax will do it. I do concede that the lack of transparency with which the tax was negotiated makes it hard to be 100% sure.

Steve Putnam says:

03:47pm | 24/11/11

@ jf I’m not cherry picking anything. Mining industry groups took exactly that   line in respect of royalties. The Henry Tax Review much the same also.
So how would you improve the present system?

jf says:

11:26am | 26/11/11

Steve Putnam says: 04:47pm | 24/11/11

“I’m not cherry picking anything. Mining industry groups took exactly that   line in respect of royalties. The Henry Tax Review much the same also.”

Sure. But they didn’t go on to say that the MRRT is the best solution.

Hence, the cherry-picking.

“So how would you improve the present system?”

I don’t know Steve. However, some starting principles would be that it would represent compensation to the owners of the resource for extracting it, it wouldn’t be isolated to two minerals, it wouldn’t discriminate from one mining company to another, it wouldn’t serve as a disincentive to investment in young companies, junior companies or start-up projects and, if done at a federal level, it would be done in consultation with the states as the owners of the resource and the broad industry not just RIO, BHP and XStrata.

I’m sure you and I could sort it out by the fifth pot.

Steve Putnam says:

02:51pm | 26/11/11

@ jf So you’d do something other than is being done now but you don’t know what; you’d just come up with something other than the MRRT(?) You certainly wouldn’t “cherry pick” anything - whatever that’s supposed to mean in the context of your postings, and you assiduously avoid answering the question of royalties which is central to the issue.
What you have given me here is more of what I have accused you of in the past - fence sitting pure and simple. You let your political partisanship trump your erstwhile fiscal conscience and then obfuscate like mad in response to questions concerning your actual position.

Phil says:

10:21am | 23/11/11

Charles well said. Your last point echos mine earlier. If one thinks that they will join the ranks of millionaires just cause they got an extra 3% super then I feel sorry for them. Many choose a life of under achieving. Sure some dont and its these we need to help not the lazy ones who think the world owes them a living.

james says:

09:45am | 23/11/11

Dont give them a payrise, give them super increase, thats how it started originally.

Aitch B says:

10:14am | 23/11/11

@james

And if Carnegie’s business is a union shop how do you think they’ll react to the “sorry…. no pay rise due to superannuation increase” explanation?

james says:

10:50am | 23/11/11

Only 14% are in unions so the odds of that are quite low.

Unions are ALP mates so i’ve heard so they should tow the ALP’s line.

Carnegie says:

12:23pm | 23/11/11

@James,

Look if the revenue from the MRRT was being passed on to “working people” via a tax cut/increase in the tax free threshold, then I would support it. BUT it’s not, it’s a con, the Australian people have been hoodwinked in to beleiving it is a way for all to share in the “mining boom”.....I simply can’t see it, the govt is using the money tp hide its failures!

james says:

12:48pm | 23/11/11

Changing your tune already?

81% of profits heading overseas.

jf says:

03:12pm | 23/11/11

james says:10:45am | 23/11/11

“Dont give them a payrise, give them super increase, thats how it started originally. “

So what’s this tax for again then?

And why is the ALP raising such a fuss about how Abbott is going to afford the increase in SGC with it?

james says:

03:35pm | 23/11/11

JF

FYI Super is increased over 7 years.

Tell me again how the sky is falling in.

Tax is to pay for government employees super increase, company tax cuts etc.

jf says:

04:13pm | 23/11/11

james says:04:35pm | 23/11/11

“FYI Super is increased over 7 years.”

I am aware of that. What I am unsure of is why the ALP is using, as one of their justifications of the mining tax, the excuse that it will fund SGC increases when it is untrue. They are also attacking Abbott for an apparent funding gap in increasing the SGC if he were to repeal the mining tax when there is no connection. 

“Tell me again how the sky is falling in.”

I never said it was. A policy doesn’t have to be catastrophic for it to be fundamentally bad. Not even leave loading cause the sky to fall in and the minister that introduced concedes that it was bad policy.

“Tax is to pay for government employees super increase”

I thought it was for all Australians not just the overpaid, sheltered workshop of the federal public service.

Richard says:

11:55am | 23/11/11

No doubt the average joe supports this plan, but only by the government turning one section of society against another. And in WA? In Qld? They’re the one’s whose rightful mineral wealth is being usurped by the government. I’m sure the average punter in Sydney and Melbourne are stoked, because they’re now getting money for stuff they legally and constitutionally don’t own or have a stake in!

james says:

12:39pm | 23/11/11

This is better way of doing it as opposed to having 2 speed states.

Do we not want any fairness?

Dick says:

12:55pm | 23/11/11

Fairness has no place in a conservative society.
It’s every man for himself as the rich step over the disadvantaged lying in the gutter.
The rich must get richer and the poor must be kept poor so they know there place.
Election now - conservatives are born to rule and the rich are our masters.

JT says:

01:20pm | 23/11/11

@Dick - ‘‘Fairness has no place in a conservative society.’‘

Fairness has no place in any society because who gets to determine what is fair? you? me? Gillard? Dictating what is fair is nothing but totalitarianism (the natural home of the left)

jf says:

03:29pm | 23/11/11

james says:

01:39pm | 23/11/11

“Do we not want any fairness?”

I think that you misunderstand “fairness” james.

Fairness almost never means equal. In the context of share of wealth it almost certainly doesn’t mean equal.

What is fair is that those you contribute in terms of work, productivity or innovation are rewarded for their contribution. What is unfair is that the proceeds of their contributions are distributed to those that didn’t make a contribution.

What is fair is that those who invested their capital and risked losing it have the potential to get a return commensurate with that risk. What is not fair is that someone risks their capital only to have those that didn’t have the courage to risk their stick their hands out only when the returns come in.

The people took a long-term view of the potential reward for investing in the mining boom got very little return, if any, sometimes for decades. Some went broke waiting for the boom. And now, when the returns are being made, the grubs are putting their hands up.

Here’s an idea, if you want a share of the mining boom, invest your own capital into Fortescue or RIO or BHP or any one of hundreds of listed mining companies. However, you won’t. You don’t have the integrity, the fortitude or the foresight to put your own money at risk. You just want the returns.

Frankly, the envy is pathetic.

james says:

09:56pm | 23/11/11

Ah JF, super fail.

I have plenty of stock in BHP, they only pay 23% tax, I get plenty out of them.

As I understand it, you want certain states to prosper and others not to. So it is was ok for the other states to prop them up when mining was not booming via extra GST receipts?
Hypocrisy much?

The rest of your post is drivel and not worth any meaningful analysis.

jf says:

02:10pm | 24/11/11

james says:10:56pm | 23/11/11

“Ah JF, super fail.”

And if you are a stock holder in BHP you are part of the problem.

Ultimately BHP is the sum of its shareholders. If you think that BHP are ripping off the Australian people then you are ripping off the Australian people. That you are a hypocrite and support the ALP doesn’t at all surprise me.

“They only pay 23% tax”

Even after that has been explained as being so disingenuous and misleading as to be a lie you still perpetuate this.

Every company in Australian pays 30% tax and have the same deductions (as they apply to their industry) as others.

It just goes to show that if you have to resort to smoke and mirrors to justify this policy just how bad this policy is.

I’d respect you a whole lot more if you simply said that you believed that companies should pay more than 30% tax and be done with it.

“As I understand it, you want certain states to prosper and others not to.”

Not at all. However, that is how our Federation and our constitution currently works. Perhaps that should be changed, however that is a different discussion. However, this tax will not address that. It is a complex series of quid pro quos, tangled tax systems, competing vested interests and inefficiencies. What is required is a full review of the tax systems of all levels of governments rather than each jurisdiction grabbing money as they need it; which is constantly when the ALP is in power. The series of bandaids and patches from the Rudd/Gillard gummints is making a bad situation worse.

“So it is was ok for the other states to prop them up when mining was not booming via extra GST receipts?”

I couldn’t say: I don’t know enough of the detail of the distribution of GST receipts and if the non-mining states were propped up and, if they were, the ledger is now being balanced. I doubt that anyone really does. However, what I feel confident saying is that if the mining states were propped up prior to the mining boom then yes the ledger should be settled. I also know that those people that invested capital and energy prior to the mining boom whilst

“The rest of your post is drivel and not worth any meaningful analysis. “

White flag acknowledged.

jf says:

02:13pm | 24/11/11

james says:10:56pm | 23/11/11

“I have plenty of stock in BHP, they only pay 23% tax, I get plenty out of them”

Also, this is exactly my point. It is far more efficient and far more favourable to Australian tax payers for BHP (or Fortescue for that matter) to distribute their profits directly to shareholders than to pay it to them via the public service.

PTom says:

10:16pm | 23/11/11

Mining got rid of more employees and the price of ore drop during the GFC, it was not mining that saved us it was farming and retail.