Nice piece.

Henry made a major mistake with the casual nature of his recommendations on "congestion charges", countered by Henry Ergas and Ed Blakely. He left out broad-based "improvement" or "betterment" charges on properties within infrastructure project zones; and Tom Parry's discussion of general levies across the metropolitan systems. Henry also forgot that areas which have paid taxes without benefits for long periods should have credits under new tax regimes.

While off the agenda, there are two points relating to the proposed mining super-profits tax that need to be discussed.

First, mining companies use “public assets” (their resources) even though they are the ones who have invested initiative and capital in finding and developing those resource, which otherwise would never have appeared. And they pay royalties to state governments for the use of those public assets. Not necessarily a problem with that, but why shouldn’t other enterprises utilising public assets pay similar fees for the use of those assets? Examples are air corridors, TV licenses, wireless spectrum, rights of way for railways, roads, pipelines, transmission lines, banking licenses etc. On one view, even land is a “public asset” that should be charged for.

Why shouldn’t all enterprises that utilise public assets be required to pay similar royalties for the use of those assets?

Second. One could surely argue that ANY enterprise generating “super” profits should be liable for payment of a super profits tax. Why just pick on the mining companies? The banks, for example, generate super profits from their banking licenses/government guarantees.

Surely we the people should be demanding a level playing field and equal treatment for companies utilising public assets and generating super profits.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12695#219231

Herbert Stencil, you are forgeting that we used to have a "super profits" tax decades ago, regardless of what industry the "super profits" came from, it was called progressive rates of personal income tax, if your business made a squillion dollars, you paid more income tax on the salaries, bonuses, dividends that went into your pocket.

Also, we already have taxes, licencing fees on all those other, "public assetts" like air waves, air corridors, etc. Hutchison Telecom paid a fortune, to Canberra for the "rights" to 3G in Australia. We could discuss whether these forms of taxation are fair or efficient, but we have had them for decades?

Fair enough Formersnag. The reason that I made the comments that I did is that I hadn't seen much discussion of those issues from a fair and equitable treatment of all industries viewpoint. What I have been seeing can really be characterised as attacking the tall poppies of the mining industry.

All I am asking for is a fair, level playing field, approach. Hopefully we will see the discussion move more in that direction.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12695#219370

Herbert Stencil, also fair enough, i agree, the problem here is the same as everything else, when these matters are discussed weak leaders are too afraid of the whinging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking to organise a level playing field for ALL business.

BTW, have you noticed how aggressive the unions have been lately? Methinks the reason is they know how much this carbon tax is REALLY going to cost us ALL.