You are another one that does not support this tax as is. I can find no support for this tax.

The government announced this tax as a done deal with some room for negotiation on transitional arrangements and other minor aspects.

So we either agree with it as it is, or not. Hnery said it cannot be modified without irresponisble risk being passed on to the taxpayer and also to the economy as it is designed not to be a stimulus.

Too clouded with people saying they do not support it, but would a different tax and those that say they support it but with changes. Both essentially reject the tax.

The rich banks will get a tax cut to assist in paying the extra super 10 years away. We probably now have sovereign risk so that the banks get a small tax cut? How dandy. It is not even reliant on the tax being approved or not, will reflect the reality we have a government willing to introduce dangerous policy. Why would anyone invest in such a country? Put a few billion into a project and the next week the government changes the laws? This is the most stupid government I have ever witnessed and for what? Not even the poor get a look in. Only 30% business get a tax cut to support extra super contributions which is defacto wealth fund. Wallyworld economics.

Also Rudd stated last week he wished to assist those other industries like tourism and international students by trashing the aussie dollar. So again who pays for this? Petrol will be higher and interest rates will possible be at a premium for sovereign risk. The miners will not be paying for that. Hope both industries do well and get us through the next GFC because mining may not be able to now.

Flat Tax ! Problem solved, period !

If all the resources and minerals truly belonged to the Australian population, perhaps they should be nationalised, but I wonder what the risk/return would be then and where would we get the investment from ? The Tax Payer ? As soon as something pays-off there is always some one with his hand out saying "it's not fair"

Australia was built on free enterprise and we all get the benefit directly or indirectly in a strong economy.

Maybe you check your facts before you come out with this drivel.
The largest mining company in Australia, BHP paid 43% tax in 2009 and this was verified by their auditors.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/resource-rent-tax-RSPT-super-profits-BHP-Billiton--pd20100524-5RALD?OpenDocument&src=sph

*As the global financial crisis passes the mining boom has returned and once again the benefits are unlikely to touch most Australians, but the Reserve Bank response will.*

Rubbish. BHP alone paid 6.3 billion$ in taxes. You think that those
$ don't benefit most of the community? Think again. Then the
taxes paid on top of that, like payroll tax, taxes on high incomes
paid by staff, contractors, suppliers, their suppliers.

Fact is, without the mining industry, we would be a banana republic.

If anyone should benefit from higher mining taxes, its the states,
for they own minerals, check your constitution.

Talk about shonky polticians quoting shonky figures in this debate!
If Julia tells any more porkies, her nose will be more like
Pinochio's :)

Mr Swan should be ashamed of himself.

The author writes >>The essential idea of the RSPT is simple: if a mining project is only earning ordinary returns then it would only attract the ordinary company tax. However, where a mine is sitting on a superior resource and generating super profits then the company should pay more tax. As the Henry Report put it:

Perhaps one alternative is for the government to 'underwrite' the miners costs associated with exploration.

Now I don't mean a 'tax deduction' but a full refund of all monies spent on exploration, even if the result of such exploration found that the project was deemed to be unviable, as is often the case.

Now if the government were to give such an assurance, then I doubt you would find any mining company that would reject such a system and, once the miners 'strike gold' so as to say, then the government gets a much larger slice of the pie.

At the end of the day, it is 'future exploration' that is most at risk under the current proposal.

So let the government share in the risk if they also wish to share in the potential gains.