I vote...and I windsurf!
www.theaustralian.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes
PS: Had a physically brutal but magic session on Saturday. Fell into an exhausted coma-like sleep that night and dreamt about sailing. Can't get enough.
Hey, we share the same job desciption. 
I get the feeling Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the Labour government. Power like that is very scary.
"News Limited has nearly three-quarters of daily metropolitan newspaper circulation and so maintains great influence in Australia. Internal News Limited documents reveal a brazen offer during the 2001 Federal election campaign to promote the policies of a major party in its best-selling newspapers nation-wide for almost $500,000[4]. Other documents include a marginal seats guide written by a senior business manager for internal use. It evidences a corporate strategy to target marginal seats at the 2004 election[5]. Some of the documents appeared on Media Watch[6] but received very little coverage[7]." - source Wikipedia (add a grain of salt/do further research)
</politics>
That would be the Greens I think. They probably haven't noticed that he is just a mouse.
Does Mickey Mouse windsurf? I always took him to be a kiter myself.
You wouldn't want a kiter for PM. Geez it could end up being compulsory.
Mickey Mouse wanted to divorse Minny Mouse. Walt Disney had a meeting with Mickey. "you can't Divorse Minny mouse just because you think she's stupid".
Mickey replied "I didn't say she was stupid, I said she was #uckin goofy"
Mining super tax - What is the problem with it. These companies are making sh!t loads of money from resources that we as citizens are all entitled to get benefit from, and destroying the landscape in the process.
So they make 60billion dollars a year instead of 100billion boo hoo.
Shares are dropping because of the mining's advertising scare campaign.
1 important point is that the tax is only on profits over a certain amount. If they aren't making much of a profit, the new tax's will be less than what they currently pay. From what I have read, it makes perfect sense is a really fair method.
I hate politics but I hate the media more and I don't beleive anything I hear or see. You need to research before forming opinions people!
It is about windsurfing...
Here is my "research"
The mining boom allows me to find jobs easy and earn good money.
So I work less, and spend more time windsurfing.
I earn more money and can buy more windsurfing equipment.
No growth in resources means less work, less money, and eventually less tax, and even worse, less windsurfing...
So leave poor miners alone, they allow us to windsurf more.
The jobs and the mones will still be there. It just means Twiggy may be worth a billion less than otherwise but he won't notice the difference anyway. Meanwhile we get better super, hospitals schools, roads and a lower company tax rate. I think Twiggy gets confused between whats good for Australia and the economy and whats good for his own back pocket.
there are other ways of looking at it.
when big companies make less money they have a lot of options - the simple view..
1. sell assests (generally to overseas companies then we don't own them anymore)
2. put up their local prices (the end user, "us" pays for it)
3. sack the workers (never a good outcome)
and specific to mining
1. stop infrastructure and community investments
2. stop exploration
the other thing that no one seems to talk about is why should we trust the governent to spend the super tax appropriately. so far they've wasted billions of dollars. would you lend money to someone you think won't use it appropriately.
and why lump the tax on one sector, surely spreading it out across multiple sectors would be a more sensible thing.
i can't help feeling after the governemnt ditched the ets which they promised to deliver they've looked around and thought who can we rip off next.
the question needs to be asked, why are they so hell bent on raising millions of dollars and what exactly are they going to spend it on and how.
no wind here
The ex reserve bank B Fraser was very well spoken on the scare campaign the mining groups put up
you prompted me to dig a bit deeper jermaldan. certainly i was off the mark with my first point. seems the problem is that no one overseas wants to buy or invest now which means exploration will reduce as less money is available to fund it.
from what i read the tax won't increase exploration.
a quote from the wall st journal.
The Wall Street Journal, in its scathing assessment of Mr Rudd's super tax, put it succinctly in its editorial, "This economic thinking runs counter to everything that made Australia rich over the last three decades: namely, the embrace of competition and capitalism, which rewards high risk with high returns . . . The truth is that all windfall taxes, however they are dressed up and sold by politicians, are arbitrary and economically damaging."http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/ground-control-to-major-rudd/20100511-uuwz.html?comments=42
Can't agree with you all.
Australia getting a better deal from the export of its mineral wealth needs to happen. Can't disgaree with that.
But the mechanism of taxing 'mining companies super profits' is not a way of acheiving it
If Australia wants to benefit more from its mineral wealth it should be investing in it, not selling it.
The Australian government should be financing mining projects not encouraging the Chinese to. If the Government offered to fund all mining exploration and development for base rate interest plus 30% of the asset it would generate far more wealth for australians than selling it to the Chinese and everybody fighting over the divvying of the spoil.
And, the definition of 'mining company' is too vague. Twiggy argued he should be allowed onto BHP rail's line. BHP argued 'rail was part of the mining process'. BHP lost. So if rail is not part of the mining process then you can assume only activities up to primary processing are, and then the 'mining' companies' profits look a lot less 'super'.
And who is a mining company ? The company that digs it out the ground, the one that owns the mining tenement, or the one that sells the ore ?
Why aren't logging companies 'miners' under the same definition ? They harvest a natural product and do not replace it. What is the difference ?
What if I started a company that went through all the old spoil heaps and refined ore because I have a better processing facility than yesterday ? Am I mining ? or am I recycling waste ?
Proposing to Tax profits of mining comapnies seem to me like a grand vague plan that has had very little thought.
Why not just put all companies on a sliding scale of company tax, same as personnal income tax ? if the miners are making 'super' profits and nobody else is teh same revenuie comes in, but at least it is fair.
Has the australian agricultural sector been a better custodian of the land than the mining companies ? evidence and legislation would suggest not.
Reds under the bed theorist malarkey that group touted under the gold tax proposale we now have, way back, and the GST proposal we now have,way back
I watched four corners... It was balanced. It also covered the malarkey thrown about by the government. It did very little to sway my view - this tax, in current form, is ridiculous. The approach that this government has taken is in tabling it and engaging stakeholders is foolish.
Some other points:
Government talks about tax paid by miners in terms of Gross Operating Surpluses (GOS). Government has not relied on treasury figures, but an inadequate analysis from an overseas PHD student. Would be nice to see some robust GOS figures - if that is the way the government wants to look at % tax paid.
Mining companies talk of tax in terms of their taxable income - same as you or I. Figures reported by mining companies are robust and have been independently audited by PWC and KPMG.
6% is not a "super" profit.
Both sides have over (or under) stated figures.
Palmer for saying he was pulling the plug on some projects, then admitting they were just delayed while he looks at what is happening.
Swan claimed that mining companies could only pay 58% tax if they were making an "infinite" profit. On four corners, Swan conceded that some projects would pay 58% tax. I have no idea what an infinite profit is... A "super" profit is only 6%... would be nice to know...
There has been very little (no?) discussion on how the tax will impact on share values and dividends. Don't own shares? Might be worth checking your super!
Irony? The most support for the tax seems to be coming from Victoria and NSW. Traditionally anti-mining states.
What about forestry, farming and fishing?
What about banking? Why will nobody in government stand up to the banks, who are aggressively mining the pockets of all Australians?
I thought KRudd was OK once, sometime in 2007... Now, the sight of him and his never ending rhetoric makes me feel sick
Lap it up and reap the rewards... OR... the consequences...
that's great panda, no issues with the norweigan model, but that's not what the alp is doing,
actually, the norweigan model is closer to what the previous government did with future funds etc.
the current gov is talking about taxing, not investing. the only investment talk they mention involves spending so go figure.
it's what they do with it and how they get it that i'm not comfortable with.
4 corners was a good watch.
anyways, i can see yet another back flip coming on from the government. they are more hungry for votes than anything else.
I vote Pugwash PM.
I too would not regard 6% as super profit, but then 40% vs old 32% is not actually a super difference.
If I had 6% of my total income as 100% disposable (i.e. not required for any essential life activity - and I would say windsurf expenditure would not be tax deducatble under this analysis), I wouldn't consider myself 'super' rich.
On an average wage of 80k per year this would mean you would have $4,800 per year, or $ 92 per week disposable income. I think one packet of cigarettes costs nearly that.
Anyone who drinks more than 1 carton of piss per week (on an average wage and does nothing else) is apparently 'super' rich according to the 'Super profit' tax proposal definition.
Then again I guess if I windsurf just once a year I am super rich compared to 50% of the worlds population, but I don't think the proposal is to give the revenue to the world's poor.
Carantoc - I was going to say we do get the first $6K tax free... But, that is how is used to be: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm
Panda - The governments webpropagandapage says that the rebate will apply at company tax rate: www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/AttractingNewResourceDevelopment.aspx
Perhaps mining companies will also pay 40% company tax... Interestingly, the governments own figures show 30% company tax... not the 28% that is promised as part of this great big sham.
It is worth noting the * in the figures... I can't see any footnotes on the page, so I have no idea what the * is telling me... other than somewhere there is a nice disclaimer like: This will only apply if applied for between 23:59:59 on 30/6 and 00:00:00 on 01/7 of each year
Seriously - the fact sheet (pdf) does say this:
The link with the answer was below the question
But the 40% stake the government is 'taking' is only an amount that is deductable by the company when it comes to paying the government (in tax).
The implication the Government takes a 40% stake is wrong. It is not owning 40% of the asset, 'owning' as in have voting rights, seats on the board, tradable shares etc.
If I build a nickle mine, go broke, owe $1 billion, the governemnt is not going to give my creditors 40c in the dollar on my behalf.
Say I break even, operate at zero profit, zero loss, (just like a charity or mutal society) the government is not going to give me cash to boost my income to reach 40% profit on investment.
My liability to the Government (in tax payments) may be reduced by 40%, but I will never get 40% in cash paid to me by the Government.
I still say bin the stupid idea and get the Government to truly own a percentage of the assets, acheivable when giving low cost investment loans to anyone who wishes to start mining.
Take the stake, take the right to a seat on the board, take the shares in the company, take the dividend on the shares, take the right to sell the shares.
Mmmm, I am sounding a bit like Karl Marx now, and I believe in capitalsim not communism (not as a personal religion, but because 2,000 years of human histpory have shown it to be the only system that actually works. I would love to see true marxist socalisim working, but like perpetual motion and orgainc papayas feeding the world it is but a dream and not in tune with human reality)
