At the end of the day does it really matter ?
Why not compare it to :
Stopping whaling
Reducing carbon emissions
revolutionising education
reforming health
increasing energy efficiency
stopping old growth forest logging for chip
making the work place a fair place
equalising women's pay
modernising the rest of the tax system
(missed a few I am sure - leaving Iraq, reining in the unreasonable practises of the big banks ......)
Won't take you long to analysis and compare
About the only thing that has happened in the last 3 years is the MP salary review was completed and signed off. So at least you can't say this government has achieved nothing.
hey all that stuff in the ground can only be taken out once, and then it's gone, I reckon that we ( Australian people ) should get what we can cos we won't have much of an income once we've finished mining.
since going over 200 bill in debt i guess its only way to cut it in an election year.
Given that a some of the largest resources projects in Australian could now be considered mature and ongoing, their infrastructure should be in place. Of course their are current capacity constraints, but that is more due to the extra-ordinary demands that are currently being put on them.
It is not really an issue of who owns the infrastructure, but how it was put there in the first place. Simply put, with a lot of help via tax and royalty breaks, investment allowances and other concessions. Which remain and are ongoing.
Why should those perks continue for the benefit of a very select few companies and shareholders?
The resource rent tax is very specific and seeks to ensure that all share in the wealth that is being created, which incidently we all own and the big miners dig out of the ground for us.
For the critics to turn around and say that this is akin to a nationalisation of the countries resources - WTF.
So far it would appear that the costs and negative impacts (externalities) have been "nationalised" and bourne by Australia, but a fair share of the profits and excessive benefits continue to remain private.
If you want to share in the "resource boom", then come and help dig it out of the ground.
People sit in the city, working for Maccas or the council or on the dole, whining that the "boom" hasnt come to them.
Others are doing the hard yards, investing their hardearned in shares or sacrificing their time to leave their beds for a few weeks at a time, to make a better financial life for themselves and their families.
Evlpanda-risk and reward. Why invest in risky mineral exploration when you can invest in a bank where profits are taxed far less, there is little risk, and they dont produce hardly any (if any at all) foreign income?
I'll wager that you do not pay anywhere near 40% income tax.
Sorry Kev - one thing that really annoys me is how you answer a question with a question.
Abbott - sorry buddy but you won't get my vote either. Any man who wears dick togs shouldn't be PM.
I would love to see the tax revenue generated from mining go towards something useful but the way this present government has blown money like a junky winning tatts really worries me.
How about putting some money aside into a soverign wealth fund for when mining goes off the boil ?
eg norway
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
Invest money into R&D and then commercialise ??
Time to revive this one...
Hey Panda, Twiggy seems a little lost as well...
Below is an extract from an article in today’s Mining News:
Then there are those of us that don't work in the mining area. THAT is the real world.
To be fair Twiggy has done a fair bit for the wider community (yes there is a world beyond ripping sh!t out of the earth) but he goes further than showing up for the opening of an envelope and is the exception rather than the rule.
It IS confusing, you ask 10 people get 10 answers.
It is for sure a REAL tax then. Confusing as the rest of them.
Funny, I was just reading another article and came bock on here about the same time you posted to say I was now confused. Is it 40% up from 30%, or company tax +40%???
I don't get why it would be applicable before debts/losses, unless they are treating it as a tax on resources instead of profits.
Does anybody know what kind of benefits mining companies might receive?
This > too hard basket
P.S. check the confusion on this article's comments:
www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-17/shiny-bum-tax-takes-sheen-off-mining-sector/828210?site=thedrum
Every time KRUDD makes a decision it seems to affect my business.
I get poorer, I cut labour. I cut costs.
Please KRUDD - please move to a South American Country where your type of leadership is the norm.
My understanding, it is on top of companies tax (40% on all profits over the first 6% return)... But hey, this will be lower right...28%, not 30%
The feds will also be rebating royalties paid by mining companies to the states for the resources mined...
So, in 2006 Pugwash Mining, scrapes together all of it's brass razoo's and comes up with $100M to start a mine with a 25 year life... Pugwash Mining can only just stretch this far, and estimates an 18% return... which is better than the 6% from government bonds... However, in 2007 Pugwash Mining starts digging. Increased costs due to high materials demand, diesel and labour shortages (not Labor, yet) are hitting Pugwash's projected returns. In 2008 and 2009 the currency and commodities prices are all over the show... Pugwash's returns fall drastically, returns are single digits... Pugwash's share holders are not happy, the share price falls through the fall... Commodity prices continue to fall (we are actually in a downward trend now). There is uncertainty in Europe. There is uncertainty over the China bubble. In July 2010, K Rudd wins the election and has a mandate to introduce the super-tax in 2012... Pugwash shelves all expansion plans and looks to invest in foreign countries... Where sovereign risk is assumed to be lower as the government is stable and does not change the rules of the tax game on a whim...
Alternatively Pugwash Mining sets up Pugwash Minerals, a Hong Kong based minerals trader.
Pugwash Mining contracts to sell all its ore too Pugwash Minerals at 6% more than it cost Pugwash Mining to mine them at.
Pugwash Minerals then sells its minerials on the world market, at 35% more than it cost them to buy it.
Pugwash share holders happy, they got 1 for 1 when Pugwash split, still get dividends the same, total value of shares the same.
Pugwash Mining happy, it pays on same company tax as other Australian businesses
Regulators happy, although Pugwash Minerals get cheap minerals, their investment of loans in the project at low interest rates and uncertaintity in global markets the Pugwash Mining deal to secure long term stable sales complies with their fairness policies.
Hong Kong happy, gets tax revenue from Aussie minerals being sold to Japan.
Banks happy, they continue to make super profits on screwing the small investor but the focus is diverted elsewhere
Australia happy ???
Seems to be a bit of ignorance of economics out there. Seems to br a bit of ignorance of politics out there. Seems to be a bit of ignorance of the taxation system out there. ... So I am going to put another slant on it. I have been f***ed over by Malcolm Fraser, I have been f***ed over by Gough Whitlam, I have been ****ed over by Bob Hawke, I have been f***ed over by Paul Keating, I have been f**ed over by John Howard, I have been f***ed over by Kevin Rudd. Now at least could they all move over and let Julia Gillard f*** me.
"In his first chance to answer questions on the $47 billion worth of savings, Mr Hockey defended including measures funded by the mining tax, which the Opposition opposes, as a saving.
The Coalition is claiming as a saving any money that it would not spend from revenue it would not get that would have been created by a tax it will not implement."
The opposition is also completely confused.
Sounds better then that line about working families getting their fair share[}:)]
