Prev
Next

The mining tax ads counter the miners’ fear campaign

Jo-anne Schofield

by Jo-anne Schofield

08 Jun 05:45am

Must Reads

Facebook’s being a boob over breastfeeding pics - this is a caption

Facebook’s being a boob over breastfeeding pics

100

Don’t blame the beautiful game for riot shame - this is a caption

Don’t blame the beautiful game for riot shame

35

Can you be a “different kind of girl” when you’re 53? - this is a caption

Can you be a “different kind of girl” when you’re 53?

22

Filed under: Election 2010, Kevin Rudd, Minerals Council, Mining Tax, Politics, Rspt

75 comments

With the miners launching the mother-of-all fear campaigns and the opposition leader fanning the hysteria, it’s hardly surprising that the average person understands as much about the resources super profits tax as they do about quantum physics.

The miners are big enough to play dirty

Most of us are reliant on private business and media interests to present the information about this substantial reform: business and media organizations that are not elected, are not publicly accountable, and aren’t under any obligation to make sure information is balanced and accurate.

I for one am quite happy for the government to spend $3.27 of my taxes—that’s the total cost per taxpayer—to provide a public information campaign that will provide facts, without spin, about its proposed tax. Indeed, at less than the cost of a hamburger, it’s money well spent if it helps provide a clearer understanding of such an important long term reform.

Curiously the opponents of an ad campaign are trying to argue that this is a party political issue, rather than a government reform, but if you take a look, you won’t find any details of the proposed resource super profit tax in Labor’s party platform.

Rather it’s the central plank of the independent review of our taxation system – and therefore government not party policy.

Indeed the Rudd government’s proposal for a $38 million advertising campaign looks quaint against the reported “war chest of over $100 million” that’s being assembled by the mining industry giants under the auspices of the Minerals Council, who was quick off the mark in spooking the bejesus out of superannuates and shareholders and others like me who are still trying to fathom the sovereign risk of taxation reform.

This is precisely why we need an advertising campaign by government.

Retired folks and investors should be able to get information about the full impact of this reform.  For the retired, privately held superannuation is only one source of income in retirement, and they are well entitled to know about the government’s plans which may boost access to good public health, pharmaceuticals and the sort of services that, in equal measure, will affect the quality of their life in old age.

As it stands now, the political information campaign about this reform is a remarkably one sided one. If our elected government can’t set the record straight then we will have to accept that policy will be dictated by the vast and unlimited resources of our most powerful and profitable corporations.

I’m not ready to accept this situation, nor I suspect are many other Australians. According to the Eye on Australia poll conducted ten years ago 64% of Australians thought big companies had no morals or ethics and 55% of people didn’t trust them. In a more recent poll by the Australia Institute, a whopping 8 out of ten people felt that big business had too much influence over every-day life.

There’s no doubt we would all prefer to live in a world where this type of spending didn’t need to occur. Sadly, that’s not the world we’re in now.

The world we’re in now is an increasingly partisan one.  This is one of the problems for government in selling this reform:  Australian politics has become caught in a cycle where political interests too often overrule national ones and too many reforms of national significance get bogged down by inter party wrangling.

Today’s policy reform process is more geared to short-termism and gaining the political upper hand than acting in the best interests of the nation.

That’s why we can’t let political game playing or big business determine this reform.  Give people the information they need and let us all determine this national reform. Isn’t that is the point of democracy after all?

Most commented

328Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
305Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
298It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
296Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
172Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?
170A comedy of errors that's not very funny
163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

75 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sherlock says:

      07:00am | 08/06/10

      This is so ridiculous it’s actually funny. Is the author seriously suggesting that the government can’t get enough press coverage? Kevin Rudd called a press conference last week and it was attended by and reported on every credible media organisation. Did he take the opportunity to explain his new tax? NO. He was to preoccupied with slagging off at the opposition.

      What about question time? There’s another great opportunity. TV and radio coverage and watched by every political reporter. Yet the government deflected every question on the RSPT while again taking every opportunity to criticise the opposition.

      The reason the miners have to spend advertising dollars is that they don;t have access to the press that the government does.

      Do you seriously believe that just because a lobby group campaigns against a government policy it should be deemed a “national emergency”? Let get’s a little serious here. This has gone past inept and crossed the line into corruption.

      A senior Labor party source summed it up perfectly

      ““The advisers around him work on the idea that we are smart; the punters are dumb; they won’t recognise that we are running a scam”

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      09:18am | 08/06/10

      Sherlock

      The fact you obviously missed the numerous speeches during QT on the mining tax over the last couple of weeks suggests that QT is not a good way of getting messages across.

      And to suggest the miners aren’t able to access the press is a bit laughable. I’ve seen Clive Palmer being interviewed about the tax at least three times (and I don’t watch television much at all) and I’ve seen other miners being interviewed as well.

      And stop the ‘national emergency’ lie already.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      11:37am | 08/06/10

      Persephone, Exactly what is a “National Emergency”? Are we being attacked by a foreign country? No. The Global Financial (scam) Crisis has, according to all the experts and our MPs, unless the latter want to use it as an excuse to raise taxes etc., barely affected Australia. So it’s not that. Is there some strange new disease which threatens to wipe out half the population just around the corner? No. So that is not one either. Has the dollar dropped down to being worth 1 cent US or the equivalent in Euros? No. So its not that.
      Given the almost sycophantic attitude of the now seriously politicised, by Rudd & Co, of the head of Treasury the Henry Tax Review (HTR) can hardly be regarded as being “independent”. The Ruddites had the HTR back in October 2009. Rudd did not release it until only a few weeks ago. He announced this Great Big New Tax without any prior discussion with either the mining industry or a single Federal Member of Parliament . The enabling Bills have not even been presented to Parliament. Sure, the Mining Industry should, like the oil industry, pay a Resources Tax. It has been reported that they in fact have no objection to one but it is the way it has been presented: “You pay normal Company Tax and then we will tax you again on what we, the politicians, decide is too much profit”. As the law stands companies can use normal expenses involved in creating income/profit as a Tax Deduction. For the mining industry, given the size and cost of the massive amounts of equipment required, that means they are legally entitled to use those costs to reduce their tax. Small businesses are no different. Private individuals can also claim many items which result in them paying less tax. It is all a matter of scale. Remove those tax deductable items and businesses will simply stop investing in new equipment. Result? Australia grinds to a standstill, unemployment in China & India will skyrocket. That Australia’s will too is of no concern of Rudd & Co.

    • persephone says:

      12:29pm | 08/06/10

      Precisely, Robert.

      There is no national emergency, and no one has said there is.

      The government’s advertising rules - the ones they imposed on themselves - gives a number of reasons why they can go outside the guidelines laid down.

      “National emergency ’ is one of them, but it is not the reason being used in this case.

      Instead, the government is citing ‘compelling reasons’.

    • Chris says:

      01:53pm | 08/06/10

      Alright Pers - let us remove the National Emergency justification (I have to admit there was a degree of media beat up on that one). However!!!!
      Please can someone tell me what on earth ’ a compelling reason is?’ That is such a Clayton’s term. It fits into the category of phrases like:
      - Any other tasks as directed by management
      -Any other activities not listed above etc.
      It is a wishy washy term that is used when you cannot justify more legitimate justifications. You really are desperate when all that that you have available is ‘for compelling reasons’.

    • antiperspirant says:

      02:10pm | 08/06/10

      “Instead, the government is citing ‘compelling reasons’. ” says the pers.

      So what.

      They had the adds ready to run the moment the laughable exemption was given.. The compelling reason was to save to their skin.

      They lied.

      The adds were ready before they knew about the backlash. Swan admitted that in 7.30 when big red carved him up.

      Stop the spin pers. They slimed their way around their own self imposed promise to get party political advertising paid for by the tax payer.

      There is no compelling reason apart from helping themselves. The miners adds or opposition wasn’t even known. They had no idea of the fury but had already lined up the self serving propaganda we have now.

      So useless are they the info number people have no idea of what to answer when questions are asked anyway so if you try to run the “informative purposes” lie it merely goes to show how useless they are at managing anything when the helpline can’t help.

      Only a true sycophants would see it as other.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      02:20pm | 08/06/10

      The funny thing is the word “super profit” was lifted from Karl Marx’s writings. Not bad for Mr. I am an “economic conservative”...?

      Second funniest is the Labor plan to smear Abbott with the “thought bubble not policy” line. If you want thought bubbles and no policy, then check out Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch, Pink Batts for everyone, a computer for every school kid, etc etc.

      The $38 million of tax payers’ money that Rudd is wasting on this “National Emergency” will probably be the same that he was trying to skin out of the mining companies.

      If this Mining Tax is “the central plank of the independent review of our taxation system” as this ALP mouthpiece and Kevin 07 claims, then he must surely resign if and when it fails?

      Well?

      What a ridiculous comment by this author about $38 million of taxpayers’ money being thrown away as “nly he cost of a hamburger each”..

      I thought people were being silly when they said Rudd would be our first one term PM, but it’s a 50/50 thing and sliding..

      Oh well, he’s always wanted to be at the UN anyway, he shouldn’t waste all those trips and groundwork come after the election…

    • Nyngan says:

      06:19pm | 08/06/10

      Look at her bio - says it all -

    • papachango says:

      06:44pm | 08/06/10

      I agree with Sherlock.

      Of the many wasteful, incompetent or just plain posturing things the Rudd government has done, this ranks with Internet Censorship as the most scandalous abuse of government power, and as blatantly hypocritical as his climate change ‘greatest moral challenge of our time backflip’, or his transformation from ‘fiscal conservative’ to ‘economic socialist’.

      The man had the hide to declare a war on party political advertising, blaming John Howard and calling it a cancer on democracy, then completely junked his own rules at the earliest opportunity. He’d booked the advertsing space BEFORE the mining companies had prepared their ads, so he’s a blatant liar too.

      Of course a left wing think tank writing, ex- union hack such as the author will support it but thankfully most Australians have seen through the spin. Hopefully this along with Web censorship will sink this totally incompetent government for good.

    • Super D says:

      07:05am | 08/06/10

      “Today’s policy reform process is more geared to short-termism and gaining the political upper hand than acting in the best interests of the nation.”

      Exactly the point of those opposing the tax grab on the mining industry.

      The fact is that there is more spin and misinformation in the Government ads.  When they start including corporate income tax in their calculations they will ge some credibility.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:18am | 08/06/10

      Heh. It’s ironic to see a union leader complaining about “fear campaigns” after the anti-Workchoices hysteria three years ago.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      09:20am | 08/06/10

      I don’t think the author is a union leader, Eric.

    • Sean says:

      09:29am | 08/06/10

      Whilst not a union leader, persephone if you look into her background you will see that the author has been a union hack for years and now works for a union sponsored outfit

      Her articles are so biased as to be laughable

    • Cofused Fuddy Duddy says:

      09:36am | 08/06/10

      Quite correcet persephone, however the very first line on the Catalyst Australia web ste - ‘About us’ page. “Catalyst is here to organise policy renewal and vision across the progressive left in Australia”.
      http://www.catalyst.org.au/catalyst/about-us

      Sort of makes a statement about the author that may indicate an anti big business bias.

    • Super D says:

      09:49am | 08/06/10

      @Persephone - the authors bio

      “Jo-anne Schofield took up the role of Executive Director of the newly formed think-tank Catalyst Australia in November 2007. Prior to that Jo-anne undertook policy and research in workforce planning, superannuation, legal and executive services as part if the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Public Sector Workforce Office.

      Jo-anne was also formerly an Assistant National Secretary with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union for five years, and in all worked in a variety of research, legal and policy roles at the LHMU for 14 years. She has a BA (Hons) first class from NSW University where she undertook a double major in Industrial Relations and History and Philosophy of Science and tutored in Industrial Relations from 1988-1990.”

      While she’s not currently a union leader its not hard to guess which way she would fall on the majority of the issues of the day.

    • bruce says:

      01:40pm | 08/06/10

      whats ironic is news ltd unrelenting campaine to bring down
      the rudd gov will more than likely give the greens the balance of power in the senate not the out come rupert would want….now thats ironic

    • jan says:

      08:58am | 08/06/10

      Without spending tens of millions of dollars of tax payers money can you tell us why Workchoices was needed or a good idea Eric? The Howard propaganda sorta tuned me out mate.

      Reply

    • Grinder says:

      12:25pm | 08/06/10

      Oh I have one!  Under the previous system the family business went bankrupt when an employee who had been caught stealing was dismissed from his job.  He sued for Unfair Dismissal and, with free counsel (seeing as how he was unemployed and therefore entitled to it) was able to tie us up in court with numerous appeals and delays and send the family and the company financially bankrupt (seeing as how owning a business did not allow for free counsel).  Bye bye three generations of hard work.  Gone.  Just like that.  Under Work Choices, would this have been possible?  Nope.

    • Andrew says:

      09:20am | 08/06/10

      I am so surprised that the government hasn’t come out and said “they (mining companies) must have too much money, they can put ad’s on tv!”  Oh, maybe they can’t because they are funding their ad campaign with TAX PAYERS MONEY.

      Reply

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:51pm | 09/06/10

      The Howard government spent more on its GST advertising campaign than the Hawke/Keating governments did in 13 years in office. Moreover these ads told us precisely nothing about the new tax other than it was “fairer’ in the opinion of the speaker.

    • Ben in Canberra says:

      09:21am | 08/06/10

      Jo-anne, you make a relatively valid point. Governments should and must be able to disseminate information to the nation in order to provide a balanced point of view in the general debate. But you have dramatically over-simplified this debate! Sure, the cost you suggest per taxpayer is not really the issue, it’s the fact that the government has unilaterally decided what they want to do, and is now dictating that to us and the very people they should have consulted with in the first place! What does Rudd know about mining? How often has Swan worked as a mining economist? When was the last time Tanner or Emerson sat in on global trade negotiations? You wouldn’t let these clowns run a sweets shop yet they take the moral high ground (remember last time they used the word moral) and elevate themselves to the level of mining demi-gods.

      It’s not the idea of telling the people that is the problem; it’s the message.

      Reply

    • Hector B says:

      10:16am | 08/06/10

      I watched the program on ABC last night, and saw a “fat cat” mining company boss, say they would take down the Government. Got some bad news for you mate. There are many of us who don’t want the mining companies running our country. If anything that convinced me not to vote Liberal. By the way the the term “fat cat” does not mean overweight, it means a rich and powerful person. And the overweight mining boss just showed his ignorance by claiming Rudd had insulted fat people. The mines are running a scare campaign, we have seen it all before. they don’t want to part with any of that money.

      Reply

    • Dean Hudson says:

      07:30pm | 08/06/10

      Totally agree! Kevin Rudd has sold this well I have followed this and I cannot understand how theres confusion other than the hysteria that Abbott and the mining giants have been running. I am absolutely shocked that the average Aussie is buying this rubbish and would prefer big corporates to keep making massive profit at our expense. By the way I see that share prices are up today as is mining investment and yet we are to believe that investment would nose dive! more lies.

    • dovif says:

      10:24am | 08/06/10

      The problem with your article is, most of those lies are coming from the government. The lies told by the government so far includes the following

      a. not including company tax rate in tax calculations
      b. that this tax would not reduce investment in Australia, for example Rio Tinto made profit of $75 Bil in Australian operation, and spend $70 bil on new mines in the last 5 years (audited), if their profit was reduced to $60 Bil because of the tax, would they have been able to spend $70 bil on investment
      c. the decrease in investment will cost jobs in the mining industry ... because of lower investment
      d. if the miner are taxed on this amount ... they are not just going to say there is nothing we can do, they will pass on the cost to their suppliers, reduces employee, increase the price they sell their good, so it does have flow on effect on other Australian industry
      e. Australian mining shares had underperform other mining shares around the world by 9% since the anouncement, so it does effect superannuation fund returns, as will the reduce ability of paying a dividend
      f. Do you really think a big spending government, who is constantly in need of new revenue measure, will be able to refund the miner when the economy is in ruin and mines are being closed and our record deficit prime minister are running record deficit, are they going to be able to refund mining companies

      Once you got Mr Rudd to accept his lies, then you can talk about the scare campaign by the miners

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      12:42pm | 08/06/10

      dovif

      a. The Treasurer’s economic note - which I have linked to several times here - does this, and concludes that, until a company is paying over 10% in profit, its effective tax rate will be less under the proposed mining tax.

      b. Yes, because it’s profit. That’s what you get after you’ve paid for all those expenses.

      c. Not according to KPMG, Ecotech and several other economists, all of whom predict employment rises. This is because of the encouragement for exploration and development and the better returns for marginal mining operations.

      d. Arrgghhh. As Ken Henry says, this is Year 10 Economics. Hell, I didn’t even do Year 10 economics and I can tell this is garbage.

      Say I’m making 10 cents profit on a $1 item. The government decides to tax me 50% on this profit (so 5 cents). I raise the price so that I’m making 15 cents profit. I am now paying the government 7.5 cents. So I raise the price to $1.20, so that now I’m making 20 cents profit, of which I pay 10 cents to the government.

      It’s simply not a logical way to operate.

      e. So end the uncertainty and sign up to the deal.

      More seriously, if your super fund is so short term in its investments and has them all in the mining basket, it’s being very poorly managed. I’d move my funds to a wiser investor, if I were you.

      f. How is this a lie told by the government? And how do you manage to get these conclusions on the basis of the government’s performance? We’re recognised as one of the best performing economies in the world, precisely because of this government’s performance. For your disaster scenario to be realised, most of the First World economies will have had to have crashed and burnt, and we’ll be concerned about far more serious issues than whether or not the mining industry is doing OK.

    • AC says:

      01:32pm | 08/06/10

      Persephone,

      You have obviously been watching your illustrious leader too much as your points have no relevence at all to dovif’s original points.

      a. What the hell are you talking about? No relevence at all to excluding corporate taxes from the advertisements.

      b. I don’t even understand your response?!?!

      c. Get a grip on reality. Mining is a HIGH RISK, HIGH RETURN industry. No projects will be started with the aim of a marginal profit.

      d. No idea what your point is?! Maybe you should go back and do Year 10 economics.

      e. You have no idea how investment management works do you? Most super funds allocate a large majority of their portfolios to passive investments (ie. their portfolio allocations will be very similar to the ASX-200 as most of them are bench marked against this index). And guess what makes up a large majority of the ASX-200? The mining and resources sector.

      f. In case you haven’t noticed, most of the first world economies around the world are in serious trouble. Australia’s performance has very little to do with this government’s performance and more to do with China. The real recession is on the way and Krudd has already spent all the money.

    • Grumbles says:

      02:12pm | 08/06/10

      pers, D is the way all private enterprise operates, this is the problem with you and Labor. NO idea in the real world.  Further your explanation of B shows that you don’t understand profit and investment. Rio did NOT make 75Bil profit AFTER these new investments, these investments are to perpetuate the continued growth of the company and increase the net worth (read: share price, but thats a really simple way of looking at it). With E you are missing the point, shares have underperformed 9% since the threat of the tax was announced, signing the deal will make things worse.

      The biggest problem is that someone needs to sit Wayne and Kevin down and explain retrospective, and explain why this one point causes so many problems in Australia.

    • persephone says:

      02:36pm | 08/06/10

      AC

      a. dovif doesn’t state which calculations he’s talking about.

      b. dovif appears to be talking about the investment costs in setting up new mines. He is ignoring the fact that the costs for setting up new mines will be reduced by this tax, as royalties are refunded and the company tax rate is lower.

      c. Tell KPMG and Enotech to get a grip on themselves. I’m just quoting them. If you’ve got expert economists who say something different, why don’t you quote them?

      And mining isn’t all about mines starting up, but also about existing operations. Existing operations can exist much longer if they remain profitable. Cutting the company tax rate and refunding royalties will allow marginal operations to provide a greater return, and stay operational longer.

      d. The point is that it’s pointless raising profits to compensate for a tax on profits. You simply generate more profits, which means you pay more tax.

      e. I don’t, but the super funds do, and they’ve made it very clear that the mining tax will make no difference whatsoever to their operations or their rates of return.

      f. Exactly what I was saying, AC. Dovif seems to think we’re a basket case, and I’m pointing out that we’re sitting pretty compared to the rest of the world. If things go pear shaped so that we end up going down the gurgler, the world situation is going to be so bad that what’s happening in the mining industry will be the least of our problems.

      Rudd still hasn’t spent nearly as much money as other first world economies, and could still borrow a lot more (as he was prepared to, if we hadn’t ridden out the GFC so well) if he wanted to, without any of the international financial institutions uttering a word of condemnation or affecting our credit rating in anyway.

      I’d hate to think how nervous you guys would be if we were living in one of the real basket case economies, when living in one of the most economically sound countries in the world has you running around shrieking that the sky is falling and we’re all doomed.

    • Grumbles says:

      04:28pm | 08/06/10

      Pers, so according to point D the tax is an incentive to lower profits?

    • dovif says:

      06:02pm | 08/06/10

      Pers
      A.  That is exactly my point, Rudd and Swann had never told us the actual total tax currently paid by the miner, in some calculations they took out company tax, in other calculation, they took out Amortisation of the cost of the mine, Swann has refused to release how his tax rate is calculated, because he knew it is not the truth, meanwhile the miners are relying on Audited accounts and can be thrown into Jail for lying …. I know who I believe
      B.  LOL Cost of mine is not lower, do you know that mines cost Billions and Billions of dollars? Yes they get refunded royalties (many a thousand dollar), ie they pay it out and then this amount is refunded, it does not reduce the cost of the mine.
      C.  KPMG had came out and said that “the practical inability to implement the RSPT in accordance with theory”  mean the mining tax does not work
      KPMG Econotech modelling commissioned by the Minerals Council finds net present values for typical second-tier iron ore, coal and bauxite mines falling 46 per cent, 57 per cent and 15 per cent respectively under the RSPT. The net present values for nickel, copper and gold mines turn negative. Yes, this is the same KPMG Econotech outlet that found mining production would expand under the government’s RSPT assumptions. It puts the difference down to “the practical inability to implement the RSPT in accordance with theory”. Labor and Treasury need to resolve this issue by modelling the RSPT under “imperfect” assumptions. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/resources-boom-turns-into-tax-debacle/story-e6frg6zo-1225875686517
      D.  I guess you have not done year 10 economics, which would teach you about supply and demand graphs
      E.  You do know that Corporations Law only allow a company to pay dividend out of profits (after tax)? Do you not? Are you really saying the decrease of company profit will not have any effect on dividends?
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-tax-to-cut-superannuation-benefits/story-e6frg8zx-1225861773899

    • persephone says:

      10:32am | 08/06/10

      Ben

      the same arguments could be made about any government since Federation.

      If governments only legislated in areas where Ministers had direct expertise, all we’d have would be laws about lawyers.

      Oh, and the message is that mining companies don’t want to pay more tax than they have to. Surprisement.

      Reply

    • watty says:

      12:01pm | 08/06/10

      And you do? Just what is dishonest in trying not to pay any more tax?

      As von Onselen said on 4 Corners the Rudd flunked out on the ETS tax and had to find another target…the resources industry..

      Having ex union hacks writing “opinion” pieces is not really that informative..

    • antiperspirant says:

      02:22pm | 08/06/10

      Love your work watty.

    • persephone says:

      02:38pm | 08/06/10

      Didn’t say it was dishonest, watty, it’s a natural reaction.

      But let’s just see all this hysteria for what it is, instead of pretending that the miners are acting out of altruism.

    • Liam says:

      04:23pm | 08/06/10

      Actually Persephone, some laws about lawyers would be nice, considering that they are one of the few professions left in Australia who can show no duty of care towards their client and be protected from any repercussions.

      Perhaps the fact that most of the politicians are lawyers is the problem with the current system of governance - if they came from other professions they might have some idea of how the laws they draft and implement will effect the country…

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:38am | 08/06/10

      So one day we get Mining Compnay Propaganda screaming doom and gloom and the next day we get Union hacks bleating about greedy miners and hwo fantabulous the world is going to be.

      Surely we can get a happy medium somewhere? Someone with a neutral point of view that isn’t beholdent to the Miners and Shareholders and someone who isn’t trying to screw more money out of them?

      Anyone??

      Reply

    • Hamish says:

      02:09pm | 08/06/10

      Hi RealDave,

      My feeling is that we will end up with a tax that is far more progressive (i.e. kicks in at a much higher rate of profit) in exchange for the government ditching the 40% guarantee (which no one talks about anyway).

      The problem with the 40% guarantee is that the miners don’t care (because they would never start a project they weren’t confident would at least make money) and the global financiers don’t take it into consideration because they don’t believe the government will ever pay it anyway. Which of course, they won’t.

      The tax rate of 40% kicks in way too low. In fact if you go to the treasury website (Persephone has posted the link multiple times - God knows why it’s a disaster for her position) you will find that the effective tax rate for a project earning 25% profit will be 50%. That is ridiculously low, especially as they are supposed to be ‘super’ profits (they wear their undies on the outside).

      So we’ll end up with something that is pretty much the same as the off-shore petroleum tax which is what everyone assumed the gov was going to do anyway.

      That’s what I would do anyway.

    • Drewboy says:

      10:58am | 08/06/10

      So Wayne Swan has come out and admitted that mining companies could pay up to 58% tax.

      Will this same test be applied to banks and other successful businesses?

      What if a cafe is super profitable? Will they pay a higher tax?

      This tax is nothing but a robin hood grab for cash!

      Reply

    • Grumbles says:

      02:15pm | 08/06/10

      For every hours effort 35 minutes is spent working for the Governments benefit.

    • Mick says:

      11:42am | 08/06/10

      “I for one am quite happy for the government to spend $3.27 of my taxes—that’s the total cost per taxpayer—to provide a public information campaign that will provide facts, without spin.”

      Since when has the Rudd government done anything without spin?

      Reply

    • Sammy says:

      11:49am | 08/06/10

      Would be nice to see a Union person come out and defend workers for once rather than just parrot the Rudd ALP line in the hope of a govt gig or a seat in parliament.

      When did the Unions go from being pro worker and affiliated with the ALP to a wing of the ALP who claim to represent workers?

      The mine workers, and mining town workers DON’T want this tax!  Get it through your head.

      Reply

    • d'oh says:

      11:55am | 08/06/10

      “With the miners launching the mother-of-all fear campaigns and the opposition leader fanning the hysteria”
      I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about the miners, not Workchoices?
      “and aren’t under any obligation to make sure information is balanced and accurate”
      Last time I checked, misrepresentation under the trade practices act is a pretty serious offense.
      “to provide a public information campaign that will provide facts, without spin, about its proposed tax”
      The spin is easy to see but if you can find a fact in ANY of the ads we have had the displeasure of being subject to please tell me.  Just one….
      ““war chest of over $100 million””
      Hey, didn’t you just mention something about making sure information is balanced and accurate??
      “Rather it’s the central plank of the independent review of our taxation system – and therefore government not party policy.”
      It is also a central plank of the budget, very much a party policy.
      “This is precisely why we need an advertising campaign by government.”
      When the shoe is on the other foot an ad campaign becomes imperative.
      Ridiculous article.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      11:59am | 08/06/10

      Is this satire?

      People know what the tax is. In a nut shell it’s a 40% tax on mining profits beyond 6%.

      Not exactly rocket science.

      But you won’t get this information via the government’s campaign which largely promotes ‘tax reform’ via pleasantries before pointing you to a website which itself is very confusing and, again, lacks the ABC’s of the tax.

      So while the author says she is happy to pay for advertising “to provide a public information campaign that will provide facts, without spin, about its proposed tax” I find myself wondering if she has actually analysed the ‘ads’ for these ‘facts’.

      If she does, I think that she will find that the information she so desires will actually be lacking.

      Also with regard to the discussion about the union influence on Catalyst, it’s comprehensive do a degree that it almost constitutes a front.

      http://www.catalyst.org.au/catalyst/about-us/40-about-catalyst/112-sponsors-partners

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      12:55pm | 08/06/10

      Well it may not be rocket science Matt, but it is obviously beyond you if you think this reform is as simplistic as a 40% tax over 6% profits.

    • Matt says:

      03:34pm | 08/06/10

      Tim, it’s the central component of public discussion. Though if you can quote any of the government ads that provide any real information I’d be much obliged- good luck.

      Looking at the argument again I not the authors observation that …. a whopping 8 out of ten people felt that big business had too much influence over every-day life.

      This is an interesting thing to note. The public don’t inherently trust big business and it’s not as if we immediately believe what they tell us.

      This actually reinforces the position that people are against this tax as a matter of fairness,  the mining companies do contribute a lot to Australia and it’s fair that they get proper reward for the significant risk they take (don’t point out the 50% offset for a failed project- people won’t support having to bail out failed business).

      For a majority of people to be against increasing taxes on parties that 8 out of 10 of us think have undue influence over our lives, well, what’s that saying?

      Also the conclusion, I think, fell a little short, I’m sure that it was just an accident but perhaps the author could have gone on to day something like:

      Give people the information they need and let us all determine this national reform ‘based on majority opinion’. Isn’t that is the point of democracy after all?

      In any respect, I look forward to your organisation defending future coalition governments as they waste taxpayer money countering union ads, in the name of public information of course.

    • Greg says:

      12:04pm | 08/06/10

      I am happy that Schofield is happy for the government to spend $3.27 on her behalf in a way they said before the election, that they would never do. But I am not happy. So is she willing to chip in an extra $3.27 for me. And BTW I know there are many others who are unhappy for $3.27 of their money to be spent in this way. Could she pay their share as well?

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      12:04pm | 08/06/10

      Yaawwwwnnn! Big bad profitable companies need to be taxed more to pay for left wing social justice policies!!!

      Thanks for the news flash, don’t bother writing any more rubbish.


      Nothing to see here , move along.

      Reply

    • monkeytypist says:

      12:54pm | 08/06/10

      The CEO’s of massive multinationals cry poor and allege that if anyone so much brushes up against their huge profits the entire economy will face catastrophe.

      Now *that’s* a news flash!

    • Hamish says:

      12:13pm | 08/06/10

      WTF!!?? Ads with facts not spin? Is this article a parody?

      The ‘central plank of the independent review of our taxation system’? Well at least the central plank of what the government cherry-picked from the ‘indepdendent’ review (quotation marks used because let’s face it, Ken Henry may as well be on Labor’s front bench). 

      Is the Catalyst Institute the Labor Party’s PR company? If they are, they should be sacked because this is way too partisan to be at all convincing. Calling it propaganda is serioulsy underselling some of the Nazi’s and Bolshevik’s best work.

      Or is this a bit? Where can I see this show? Dates and times please…

      Reply

    • watty says:

      12:20pm | 08/06/10

      Mining industry = big industry = big money = huge exports = easy target. = pay for Rudd’s cowardly act on ETS.

      Rudd Government = wasteful spenders = big borrowers = selective taxes = “Get Miners”= mislead Parliament = mislead Australians (14% to 17% is all mining companies pay in tax)

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:08pm | 08/06/10

      Big business=lots of money=easy target=pay for Abbott’s parental leave package.

    • Willy_K says:

      12:24pm | 08/06/10

      Socialism 101 followed by Class Warfare 101.  The tertiary subjects of the damned.

      This government is an utter disgrace.

      Reply

    • Rohan says:

      12:33pm | 08/06/10

      When I was in Uni i would drive home to my parents farm for the holidays.  Now my car radio was pretty bad so there was a point in the journey where i could only pick up two very boring stations.  One particular trip i could only the option to listen two was a talk with a Tax professor or a talk with a women discussing how liberating not shave.  Hence i chose the Tax guy. 

      Mind you this was a few years ago back in the time of Howard.  He said that the Tax code is so out of date and muddled up that the tax departmen is making up the rules has they go along.  They actually do not know what is going on.  So much money is wasted in taking money from people just to give it back in handouts.  What he suggested is was that the money you would be getting from the govenment would be taken out of tax you would be paying to the govenment before it was sent and the balance then be sent to you. 

      But he said no politican liberal or labor is going to say we are going to be taking away your handouts because they are gutless.   

      This Super profit what ever tax to me is not reform it just the government creating a tax because it can.  Another thing is’t this tax require that the is a profit in the first place.  What will happen if there is no profit?

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:12pm | 08/06/10

      If there’s no profit, they don’t pay any tax at all and furthermore they get their royalties refunded.

    • Confused Fuddy Duddy says:

      08:08pm | 08/06/10

      Pers No profit normally means no need to continue in business. What a great idea, lets build an economy around that concept! I hope your taxes will pay my aged pension!

    • persephone says:

      09:11am | 09/06/10

      Funnily enough, CFD, there are mining projects which are up and running and don’t make a profit.

      This is because they’re in the start up phase - exploring or developing a new lease.

      At present, they still have to pay royalties.

      It’s not uncommon for people to invest money in enterprises which aren’t profitable - if they didn’t , new businesses would never get off the ground.

      Your great idea seems to be that no money should be invested in anything which isn’t already making a profit. If we built an economy around that idea, it would quickly stagnate and die.

    • Bob says:

      12:40pm | 08/06/10

      All government ads only ever say things like ‘fair’, ‘future’, ‘trust us’ and ‘families’. None of these words dispell misinformation but rather add directly to it.

      If the governemnt ads actually included facts and information rather than “this is good for Australia, blah, blah, fairair….” I would actually be all for them.

      Reply

    • Bryan says:

      12:42pm | 08/06/10

      Jo-Anne, so lets be really simple about this and forget about the financial jibber jabber. Fact 1 - at the end of the day the Government wants the miners to cough up an extra 9 billion a year in extra tax. Fact 2 - None of this money will help small businesses with their Superannuation payments for their employees or a lower tax rate. Fact 3 - The states that have large Mining industries will now contribute to the upkeep of the non Mining states as well as suffer lower GST receipts on an ongoing basis. Fact 4 - Over the next 5-10 years overseas ventures will attract more resource dollars that in all probability would have come to Australia (hence lower tax receipts, lower levels of employment and less infrastructure). Fact 5 – if this tax was about the future of Australians it would be invested in a Future fund and not be used to balance the books (because of the billions that have been wasted to date).

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:30pm | 08/06/10

      Fact 1 - the tax is expected to raise $3 billion in its first year.

      Fact 2 - 2% cut in small business tax rate.

      Fact 3 -  Mining states will have the burden of providing infrastructure to support mining operations taken from them.

      Fact 4 - according to independent economic modelling, employment and investment will rise.

      Fact 5 - revenue raised from the tax will go towards lowering company taxes and improving national savings.

      Fact 6 - Labor’s spending staved off a recession, saved jobs and prevented an even greater deficit.

    • Tim says:

      12:57pm | 08/06/10

      So a reduction in Company tax and an increase to superannuation is a left wing social justice policy?
      Riggghhhhht.

      Reply

    • Catherine says:

      01:15pm | 08/06/10

      Which ‘left wing social justice policies’ do you refer to Andrew?
      Have you ever been a patient in a public hospital, gone to a public school, caught public transport, driven on a public road, been bulk billed for a doctors appointment or called 000 in an emergency?

      Perhaps you would rather pay for these with increased personal income tax?

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      02:06pm | 08/06/10

      Catherine,

      I would rather see the billions that are currently spent on these areas at all levels of government be better managed.

    • Philip says:

      01:38pm | 08/06/10

      No point putting a decent comment here, with serious questions to the author. They will not publish it anyway.

      This is happening more and more since the slide of Chairman Rudd in the polls.

      Reply

    • Fran says:

      01:49pm | 08/06/10

      I had a bit of a laugh that you are happy to pay $3.27 to find out more about the mining tax. I laughed even more when you stated that the miners ad campaign will ‘spooking the bejesus’ out of people. Of course they will that the point, So will the government they will have a similar type of ad.

      Remember the anti work choices campaign? Run by the unions and the ALP? Didnt have a lot of information but it well put together and spiked fear i the voters. That the whole point how much information do you think some one can get in a 30 second ad?  You admitted that the new mining tax is as complicated as quantum physics so there must be heck of a lot of rocket scientist out thier for these ads to get the information across.

      It PR not information. The world is made up of 5 - 30 sec sound bites that how most people will vote. Rudd and Abbott use it alot.


      -Big new tax on everything
      -the moral and economic challenge of our time
      - Help for working families without throwing the fair go out the back door ( left thumb thrown over right shoulder)
      - sorry

      you get the idea.

      80% of the population dont have a clue or want to every know any way. It is all based on 30 seconds to which party will win.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      02:00pm | 08/06/10

      I saw the Government ad for the first time and I actually found it ‘compelling’ viewing (in a sort of watching a train crash sort of way). It reminded me of the Simpsons where the spruiker opened his speech with “It is a not a pyramid scheme-it is a tetrahedron!”- talk about art imitating life.
      I felt I was in an Amway meeting.

      All in all alot of time spent on nothing-alot like the last three years.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      03:52pm | 08/06/10

      First, let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes you’ve been hearing about.  No sir.  Our model is the trapezoid!

      Classic

    • luke09 says:

      02:13pm | 08/06/10

      Why are the govrnment continuing with this ill thought Rudd tax, it barely resembles the Henry tax. Rudd should admit failure and start again especially when David Murray, the chairman of the government’s superannuation investment fund, said the “tax has to be changed or abandoned” as it contained “several significant flaws”.

      Anyone still supporting the tax in it current form don’t care about the tax or its failings, they are just blindly supporting Rudd, our worst PM in history.

      Reply

    • Eye4anEye says:

      02:41pm | 08/06/10

      @ Jo-Anne

      I found this part of your piece interesting “According to the Eye on Australia poll conducted ten years ago 64% of Australians thought big companies had no morals or ethics and 55% of people didn’t trust them.”

      I also have another poll conducted quickly in the office and 100% of people thought politicians had no morals or ethics and 100% of people didn’t trust them. Granted my poll consisted of only a dozen people but I suspect the trend would hold in public.

      I also have to take an article written by someone who has a “14 year stint with the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union” in their biography on: http://www.catalyst.org.au/catalyst/footer-about-us/101
      with a pinch of salt - long time unionist does not an unbiased article make.

      oh and I for one am not happy for the government to spend $3.27 of my taxes on advertising especially after being promised by Mr Rudd he wouldn’t do exactly this (refer to poll above on untrustworthy politicians).

      Reply

    • Jeff M says:

      03:00pm | 08/06/10

      ummm just a thought, the fact that the unions are backing this tax, should tell you all something, if men are out of work they can’t pay their union fees, so The Union is not going to endorse anything that will lose them members!! The big miners don’t want to part with the cash, they would rather we all paid more tax!! I vote for the mines paying more tax thanks!!

      Reply

    • Hermann W from Clare says:

      03:55pm | 08/06/10

      I wouldn’t mind so much about this advertising if it did indeed convey information and not platitudes.
      As for the SUPER PROFIT TAX, silly me was always under the impression that if I make a profit on my labours I pay income tax, not counting all the fees and charges along the way. Small profit -llittle tax. Big profit-big tax. Super profit(?)- super tax. Where did I go wrong?

      Reply

    • Kevin Gillard says:

      04:03pm | 08/06/10

      Jo-anne, are you kidding me,

      “I for one am quite happy for the government to .......provide a public information campaign that will provide facts, without spin, about its proposed tax”.

      Facts, without spin—- a Labor government advertising campaign! What colour is the sky in your world? Will the ads include the fact (that Wayne Swan has now admitted) that mining companies could be paying up to 58% tax. Why would anyone invest here with that tax bill hanging over their head?

      Reply

    • Jugger says:

      05:17pm | 08/06/10

      What I want to know is:  Is Clive Palmer the love child of Jabba the Hutt and Susan Boyle?

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      06:21pm | 08/06/10

      Can someone point me at a link to the Government’s mining tax ads?  I searched YouTube but could not find them.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      09:30pm | 08/06/10

      Well I just saw on SBS an adv. from the Mining Council promoting their policy, so for the Govts. view, just put ‘not’ after every verb in the blurb.

      And all you Laborites should now avoid SBS.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 07 Feb 12 07:22PM

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 07 Feb 12 06:41PM

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Paul Colgan

Colgo 07 Feb 12 06:16PM

Can't believe this yoghurt mob thought they'd get away with the John Butler trio sound-a-like http://t.co/Hn0rMchs

tory_maguire

_Tors 07 Feb 12 04:37PM

Irritated by barrage of articles about mummy guilt, mums in crisis blah blah blah. Am I only noticing now or is this a newish avalanche?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

by Tory Shepherd

60

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

by Tory Maguire

70

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

by Anthony Sharwood

34

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed