Multinational Mining Giants threatening to leave Australia for greener pastures because of taxes on their super-profits, is the worst sort of misleading tripe and scare-mongering possible.

If thats what they want to do let them. It will simply increase the value of our resources and strengthen our bargaining position when they come back cap in hand after pillaging someone else's country. They wont and they're bluffing ! .

To suggest that places like Africa will be more attractive than Australia (if we impose a resources rent tax) implies that currently, we are more attractive than Africa in tax terms. Meaning we are currently not imposing enough tax on miners anyway.

The resources that we lease/rent to these multinational corporations belong to us: not them, ultimately and actually.

It is also not clear that after they move to this country where they perceive exploitation easier, (albeit Canada or Brazil even) that the Govt there seeks to impose similar or equivalent tax regimes.

It's tripe, all of it. Instead we should installing certainty for our economy and getting on with reality and coming to agreement on this.

The Henry Tax review begat this idea not Rudd and this change is a taxation change.
Abbott claims "that this is a tax on the 500,000 thousand people that work in the mining industry". It's tripe because "none of these people will pay this tax". Their Multinational Corporate Employer will instead.

Big money will bombard us with media propaganda no doubt from here to the election but hopefully common sense will prevail and the electors will vote for the Resources Rent Tax.

It will go along way in paying for a future ETS.

thinker 2,

>>If thats what they want to do let them.

And then what?

Who pays for our future?

Where will the dollars come from?

They are the driving force of our economy and, if you can't see that then you are blind!

>>>It is also not clear that after they move to this country where they perceive exploitation easier

This is what is at greatest risk, exploitation as, if the rewards are not there, why would/should they risk billions searching when it has been suggested they stand to return around 6% on investment?

Better off putting the money in the bank and sitting one thier hands, don't you think?

>>>It's tripe, all of it. Instead we should installing certainty for our economy and getting on with reality and coming to agreement on this.

So if you were offered overtime at say 'tripple time' and were taxed 70c in the dollar, would you do the hours? That is of cause only to be paid if the business you work for makes a profit, otherwise you will have worked for nothing.

Would you work under those conditions? Be honnest now!

>>>"none of these people will pay this tax".

It will impact on thier jobs, thier futures, thier families. The possible consequesnses are huge and have the potential to cripple our economy.

>>>Big money will bombard us with media propaganda no doubt from here to the election

There you go, you're a 'dud' supporter, hey!

Maybe it will be simmilar to the scare camp run by the unions last election, hey!

No worker will be worse off, hey!

Finnally, why not tax the banks.

They don't invest in exploration.

They have afee for everything.

They only rent commercial space.

They employ 'off shore' tele-marketers.

They make billions, as well.

They take houses off honnest, hard working families.

Once upon a time a bank was somewhere you held your money.

Now, it is somewhere that charges you to hold your money and makes 'billions' in the process and, as they are not 'privately owned', the CEO's risk NOTHING!

Send the beggars to Canada rechtub.
May not find as much coal.
Iron may be less quality.
Uranium not found in big lots.
But mining in the snow will be fun.
Come to think of it why are they not there now?
Hide of Rudd, thinking we have ca right to some return for the empty holes in the ground that we will have left.
Sleep well rechtub the sky will not fall.

Belly, Thinker2
IMO you are right on the *money* for me.
The tragedy is that the likes of Shadow minister, Yabby, Hasbeen et al
and the great unwashed will be taken in.

I find it astonishing that given the endless lest of 'Cock ups' (archery term for firing short) by resource companies are allowed to get away cheap.
-The coal tanker on the coast recently,
- the polluting of the river in PNG,
- the Aussie miner that polluted the Danube.
- the Uranium miner that had a tailings dam pollute the river in the Arnhem land.
- how about the spill off the coast of WA
- Did I mention the oil spill in the Mexican gulf. Are you seeing a common thread? I am.
They have gotten away with the minimum for the maximum profit.
The common link they play risk games at our expense. They never have the right equipment/adequate back up systems for the OOPS's.
Can you imagine he stink that would go up if a govt department or a small business made the same short term focus decisions?

I have no problem with profits but profit without responsibility ....this 2010 not 1860.
I agree that miners any corporation should make profits but not at the cost of the country where the resources are that included a fair tax to enable the government to fund the future.
The level of the tax maybe can be adjusted

"Posted by thinker 2, Friday, 7 May 2010 5:01:26 PM
Big money will bombard us with media propaganda no doubt from here to the election but hopefully common sense will prevail and the electors will vote for the Resources Rent Tax".
"It will go along way in paying for a future ETS".

Bring in a tax to cover an ETS that the world’s largest carbon emitting nations are nowhere near agreeing to.
Why don't we give the tax funds direct to the states, I know my lot are broke. Why does this Labor govt keep giving to the rich, in this instance brokerage houses and stock exchanges, and who pays for it, us , the consumer. Why is "little emission" Australia leading the pack. Because Kev wants a U.N. job after he has screwed us. We will be in Boorawa too frightened to consume electricity and he will be in Brussels frightfully consuming all that life has to offer the self serving.
Re the ETS
Climate change, a cycle.
Environment issues, a must.
Nuclear, the logical option.
Carbons detrimental effect, unproven.

Posted by examinator, Saturday, 8 May 2010 9:30:27 AM
The level of the tax maybe can be adjusted.

I agree with your sentiments. But let’s look at what has instigated the miner’s tax, as it wasn't on the radar last week. The answer is that our government needs money. They did not need it when Labor came to power, but they went from a surplus to $180 billion gross debt in a couple of years. They are inept, as shown by the ridiculous 40% grab right of the mark.

Examinator points out deftly that there is a price to pay for someone, when mining your natural resources. I can't imagine mining company's coming back after the resources are gone and helping us deal with the aftermath.

I think Belly agrees that their bluffing and Rechtub is crying wolf for miners but pointing out that it should be done to the banks as well.

The Rent tax is a tax change and I believe a sensible one, as Belly said "the sky will not fall".

*The tragedy is that the likes of Shadow minister, Yabby, Hasbeen et al
and the great unwashed will be taken in.*

Let me tell you about a little word Examinator, which is something
that you clearly lack and its called integrity.

When a company decides to invest billions of $ in a venture, they
look at the rules, take a huge risk, creating jobs and paying
huge amounts of tax in the process. They dont' just pay company
tax, they pay payroll tax, state royalties, all sorts of stamp
duties, the list goes on. BHP pay around 43% of net income in
taxes, so nearly half. Anything that is left, is nearly always
ploughed into new ventures, mining sucks up capital.

Now before a company takes that huge risk, its only fair that
they know the rules by which they are playing, so that they can
make a fair decision.

Thats what we did with the petroleum tax. We told them before
they invested a $ what they would pay. Not in this case.

What you and Belly are doing is changing the rules after companies
have invested billions, then saying "bad luck sucker, you have
built here now. Now we can screw you for whatever we like".

Examinator, one thing I am proud of, in all my dealings in life,
I have always kept my word, even if it went against me. Integrity
means something to me. You on the other hand, clearly have the
attitude of little more then a parasite. Shame on you.

Yabby,

My Integrity? What a load of tosh. What have I got to do with it?

In short You and I disagree (no biggy, neither is that new.)

he topic was the big spin. you and the others mentioned will/do believe it en toto is a fact based on you philosophic bias and the manner in which you get your information (fact).
Your attack on my personal integrity is not only unwarranted but proves my point.
You have a clear defined bias .

There was no slight of you except in your mind. I separated out three individual because they (you) would respond differently than each other and certainly the paper thin reasoning of others and the general public.

In reality the issue is some what more complex than as painted in the pro big business media. (Australian et al) or simplistic (popularist reasoning)

And your argument about nothing should change is ....well, defies the principals 'capitalism'. Capitalism is based on change which are a fact of life.
I would also suggest you read a little wider
http://economics.com.au/ etc.
There are two short articles.
My stance is clear the government is or should be obliged the interest of Australia first.

The article makes valid point that Big is not necessarily the best model (for Australia)

The point of my response was merely to point out that the spin *will*
have appeal to certain mind and emotional sets.

Finally it was intended to show that I'm unconvinced by the level of the negative views.

Examinator, you are dribbling yet once again.

Now listen to a fellow like Marius Kloppers and what
he is saying, it is not spin, it is plain, hard, simple
fact.

Read a few annual mining company reports, to understand
how and why they make decisions.

Mining companies already take huge risks. Currency risks,
commodity price risks, technology risks. These are factored
in, when making an investment decision. All they ask from
Govt is that Govt keeps its word, over the life of a project
and does not change the rules at whim. That is not unreasonable.

If you agree on something, then change your mind to suit yourself,
then you don't have integrity, would not know what it was.

When the Hawke Govt negotiated the offshore petroleum tax,
he showed integrity and it stood to Australia's credit.
For companies knew the rules of future investment, they
could play by those rules and risk their investments if they
wished. Mining companies plan years ahead, they need reliability.

What we have had in this case is nothing but an attempt at
quick election pork barreling. Integrity was thrown out the
window, reliability and predictability were thrown out the
window, the figures were fudged by Govt to impress dimwits
like yourself.

Kloppers and others are not fools. But a dimwit like youself
clearly does not understand that and will learn the hard way.

It's clear now that the strategy of Big Money Spin will be massive over statement re the effects of the Rent Tax on their position. The Opposition will take the line that Govt is playing with numbers by using the Rent Tax to disguise the effects of their reckless spending.

The battle for the Australian election begins!.

There is only one reason for a sudden application of a Great Big Miners tax.

That idiot Rudd lost his bottle, & backed His Great Big Carbon tax.

The idiot is like a locust. A big jump into somewhere. Destroy everything in sight. Another jump to destroy something else.

An attention span of an idiot is his problem. Makes decisions in great haste, then finds he's stuffed up [again], Then another hasty decision to try to stop anyone noticing the last stuff up

Yabby,
Obfuscation 101, throw in ad hominem to cover your mistake and ridicule topic raised and divert.
You can do better.

Hasbeen,

Glad to see you can amuse your self with your vitriolic/hyperbole radomizer.
tip. vitriol/hyperbole works better when there is some overall logical context or relationship... Just being helpful.

*Obfuscation 101, throw in ad hominem to cover your mistake and ridicule topic raised and divert.*

Which is exactly what you are doing right now, Examinator.

Evidently you are simply too scatter brained to actually understand
the points that a huge player such as Kloppers, is actually
making.

But it seems that the Govt has already realised, that it has made
a major blunder. Martin Ferguson is already backtracking,
suggesting that terms are negotiable and that companies should
sit down with the tax consultative committee, project for project,
which was once of Klopper's points.

The excuse now is that this tax is better then the State based
royalty tax. The major backdown by Govt is just beginning, for
like you, they never thought these things through.

Yabby,
My you are a B&T flower.Go for it mate, hope you feel better.
BTW where was my ad hominem aimed at you?

I'm simply not interested in your regurgitation of what has been on/in the mass media with the add hyperbole especially since it's off the topic.

If someone doesn't APPEAR to agree with you they are what ... lacking in integrity, should be ashamed ,dribbling,dim witted......
Perhaps you should read what I've said elsewhere on the topic.

Not so Examinator. The fact is that if you want to throw around
insults as you did, which I highlighted in my first post, then
I will honestly tell you what I think of you, your opinions and
why.

Now if you want to do more then pass your normal smart arsed
comments, then at least inform yourself about what the real
players in this debate are saying. Not the press, not the
commentators, but the players that matter, such as Kloppers.
Then understand why they are saying it. It is for very good
reasons, which every informed investor would understand.

If you understood those things, you would also know why
miners such as BHP, when they make huge investment
decisions over many years, like 22$ billion on the
expansion of Olympic dam, should they go ahead, want
Govt to tell them ahead of time, what their net outcome
will be, not after the event.

If you don't understand why integrity is required in
all this, then you either have none, or don't have
the foggiest what this issue is really about in the
first place.

Now you are free to toddle off and go and understand
the issues, but so far the only tragedy has been
your ignorance

Oh yes – yet again we have the Yabby’s definition of ‘integrity’ coupled with his adoration of the third world, ‘rape and run’ strategies of the transnational corporate plunderers invading this nation and anywhere else they can get their sticky fingers into.

"Dear Reader,

"In 2008, Chevron paid more than $40 billion to the governments of countries around the world - much of it entirely in secret.

"Chevron drills for oil in places where millions of families struggle on less than $1 a day. That $40 billion could have supported schools, health care and food programs - so where did it go?

"Chevron knows exactly how much it paid to each country. But they won't say. And without any information on these secret payments, poor communities can't demand their fair share - to send their children to school, create jobs and escape poverty and hunger.

"Tell Chevron to open the books on its secret payments so that the world can follow the money and help put it toward real development.
Without even a basic accounting of how much money Chevron sends to each country, there's no transparency, no accountability and no way for poor people to call for their fair share.

"That means people whose lands are yielding up billions of dollars in oil revenues still face chronic hunger and poverty. It means some officials remain free to enrich themselves with no public oversight.

"This makes it hard for citizens and watchdog groups to follow the money and keep officials honest.

"Oxfam's staff have met with Chevron multiple times, but they keep refusing to disclose. So we've filed a shareholder proposal for Chevron's May 26th annual meeting, by which shareholders can exercise their rights and ask Chevron to open the books on its secret payments - and we're also making it easy for people like you to put direct pressure on Chevron:"

https://secure.oxfamamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1093

Sincerely,

Raymond C. Offenheiser
President
Oxfam America

Dickie dear, last time that I can remember, you claimed to be
a woman. Do I now crucify you with every crime ever committed
by another female?

Guilt by association is simply not going to work, for Chevron
have absolutaly nothing at all to do with the onshore mining
dispute that is going on right now in Australia.

Oh that’s right – Chevron Australia - the petroleum tax Yabby – mere petty cash!

Gas flaring has been outlawed in Nigeria since 1984, but it’s cheaper for oil companies to pay the insignificant fines and kill off the natives.

The Nigerian Federal Government announced again that gas flaring would cease on January 1, 2008, and any ‘company which flares gas after that time would be shut down.’

Well no, they weren’t shut down and they've not ceased gas flaring because in March this year , Raymond Anyadike, a professor of climatology at the Department of Geography of University of Nigeria, told journalists that acid rain could only fall within the Niger Delta region because of the huge quantity of sulphuric dioxide and methane in the air as a result of gas flaring from the operations of Shell, Chevron et al.

The report stated that gas flaring has created thick plumes of smoke across the Niger Delta region, releasing over 250 identifiable toxins, and contributing more CO2 to the atmosphere than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa combined.

December 1999: US: Chevron, BP Amoco, and Conoco agree to pay a total of $153 million to settle allegations that they underpaid royalties for oil produced on federal lands.

December 2009: Washington — 'Chevron Corp. will pay $45.5 million to resolve claims that it underpaid natural gas royalties to the government and Native Americans, the Justice Department announced.

'The government contended that the corporation made improper deductions from royalty values and violated the False Claims Act by underpaying the royalties.'

“Integrity means something to me.” Yeah sure it does Yabby - corporate graft and corruption rewarded with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ subsidies to trash the planet and the ecosystems of its poverty stricken inhabitants!

Oops Dickie, that female prisoner who went around killing people,
she is female just like you. Shame on you! :)

Chevron has nothing to do with this dispute or with any agreements
involved.

Sorry darling try again.

Yabby
I started by throwing around insults? Any thing that points out your philosophic bias is insulting hey? Interesting.

This argument (by we mortals is based on what we are told by the media) as it stands now. Therefore it's either philosophical, political or theoretical/speculative.
i.e. The parameters/definitions of the 'tax' are neither set in concrete or defined.

They (both miners and Govt) are euphemistically still in the ambit stage. The miners are naturally reacting to their perceived interests(protecting their status lucrative profits).

Of course they want to get away Scott free. That is the whole ethos of capitalism ....reduce costs, increase sale price No biggy.
Will the miners Pack up and leave?....Not Bloody Likely.
Will they seek bigger returns else where? They'll do that anyway.

The miners are playing power politics. However, Publicly threatening to bring down a sovereign government in favour of a "more corporately acquiescent one", by massive spin campaigns.

The question in my mind is more fundamental "Who runs this country the voters via their government or Corporations whose interest are clearly exploitive?".
Most these miners have records of only being interested in the countries/people, providing it doesn't affect their share price (profits) and therefore executive bonuses.

You ignore the plethora of cost cutting history, profiteering and other corporate shenanigans.
You talk about integrity! (I still don't understand why my personal integrity is at stake , not that I care in this context.).

In short My original comment stands. There is so much *more* to this , much of which we don't know.
In the absence of real information Politically blinkered individuals like you and others jump to *political* (opinionated) conclusions not All the facts.

Examinator, you make my point for me. You are frankly too stupid
to understand this dispute.

What blokes like Kloppers are saying, is not the media, it is
their own words, which you are free to watch, if you pay just
a bit of attention to how business functions, how and why
they make decisions.

But I can assure you that its about to get very political.
The Govt will have to go into major backdown, or these companies
will become political, something they have avoided in the past.

You don't negotiate ambit claims by claiming it as future law and
including the figures in the budget. The Govt was free to
discuss these things with the key players all along. But nope,
they are too stupid, like you. Instead they have signalled to
the world, that Australian Govts are unreliable and cannot be
trusted, when it comes to investment, for the moment investors
have spent their money, they might just get shafted up their arse.

That is the difference between a Costello and a Swan. Costello
understood these things, Swan knows as little about business as
you do.

I certainly hope that the miners make it highly political. I hope
that they put on hold every single resource project, in every
single marginal seat, so that all those employees, contractors,
suppliers and others down the chain, vote with their wallets.

Never mind the millions of outraged shareholders, they will just
be another whole host of people who have had a gutful

'
When they make a comparison to Africa they refer to sovereign risk. Countries with higher risk find it harder to raise funds and when they do it is is at higher interest rates. If this tax is considered to impact the rating of Australia then interest rates will rise both for miners and the population. About half of borrowed money is sourced from overseas. When a country re-invests such a rent into a future fund it is not considered a soveriegn risk because the country is maintaining an asset, The labor government here though are intent on wasting the revenues so is seen as arbitrary and interventionist. Such fancy schemes were dreamt up last century and usually led to recession with inflation and higher rates being the trigger.

So it could be very bad for everyone, very very bad, Who knows, such a gamble but the big mistake I feel is they have gone in too hard and hate the foreign investors, so a bit silly. Very silly. Hate and envy, greed and so, usualy emotive and visise politics.

We will just have to wait and see. If we are re-rated as a risk then it will get ugly. I would have prefered a more consultive approach to the miners and a considered rise in tax. Also as states actually own the resource would have been nice to let them know beforehand the Feds were raiding their wealth. We amy end up with WA seceding. You cannot be so arrogant in power and get away with it.

60 minutes has exposed the issue of fraking..where chemicals and water are put hydroliclly into the coal gas seams..naturally the chemicals are secret...but research discloses this

Companies are wanting to drill natural gas wells in New York City's drinking watershed."

Several City Council members have expressed concern over that idea, and there's been talk of finding a way to ban drilling in that region.

But the natural gas industry argues that more regulation will push up prices. To be sure, hydraulic fracturing is, in part, responsible for the low natural gas prices consumers are paying now.

Colorado School of Mines professor Geoffrey Thyne understands that. Still, he wants the industry to start encouraging more scientific research on fracking.

"Let's prove to everybody what we're saying — that's there's absolutely no danger — but let's do it in a rigorous way we can defend," says Thyne.

Thyne says the industry also could agree to stop using harmful chemicals in the process.

Already, several of the largest drillers have agreed to stop using diesel, which can poison groundwater with benzene...noting benzine is a known carcinogen...[added to petrol..instead of lead..lol]..govt servants prefer to have us get cancer...than lead..which only dumbed us down...clearly qld govt wants us dead not just dumb

if your not dumbed down too much yet..you just might do some light reading...before you get your few pieces of silver..from your investments....noting water is often used to grow the yabby

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1052462
http://www.newsweek.com/id/154394

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=gas+fracking+chemicals&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

TheMissus contrives a most elaborate piece of scare mongering with ramifications for all.

Not unlike like the Liberal party and/or Industry Captains claiming today, that a $27 per week gross increase for lower paid workers will send small businesses to the wall.

If a small business employing 10 staff cant afford another $270 in wages per week for those 10 staff, then that business must being hanging on by a thread anyway.

If the employer cuts back hrs or sheds jobs to compensate for extra wages he's paying, he loses productivity, but the employee's get to spend more time with their family for the same pay they was already receiving. A smart viable business would not do this.

Also if you keep wages suppressed as claimed necessary by the Lib's/Business and allow inflation to continue unabated without suitable regulations in place, people will eventually stop coming in to buy things at these small businesses, threatening the jobs of those who work in them anyway.

Big money with their spin doctors and their political crony's/allies, whose greed is ugly, mystifying and astounding, all at the same time, will be chipping away at every and any level, based upon the common purpose that they should scare the masses in to believing that they're at risk of losing that ,they already have, by voting in favour of themselves.

An interesting philosophy "letting business do what it recommends" but in my view this philosophy has no real place in our human or earthly future.

Thinker 2, Elaborate scare monger lol

Whatever. We have sunk beause of intervention before and we will sink again. Free market will make the corrections as well so no need to force as this tax does, however what is done is done.

We are cactus now.like the rest of the world..we cooked our goose.

UOG, sounds to me like you are getting all confused there.

Coal seam gas is one thing, its the big thing in Queensland.
In the USA, its shale gas, which is the big game changer
and is affecting gas prices.

Yup, they both crack rocks underground.

Shale gas is still novel in Australia, but they think
there could be a fair bit in the Cooper Basin, so Santos
and Beach Oil would be winners.

Fact is, you as a consumer want energy and you want it
cheap. So they find it one way or another. If extraction
methods are not safe, that is really up to the regulators
to decide.

The only silver that I know about, is the silver that you
are hiding under your bed, as you told us, as you don't
trust banks.

Last I read, you were determined to kill yourself with
nicotine. What is suddenly now the big concern about
diesel? As it happens, I've swallowed a bit of it over
the years, but so far so good lol.

Apologies The Missus, the terminology I used was offensive/in-appropriate. What I am saying TM is that Australia's credit rating wont change as a result of the mining tax changes. Australia's credit rating might even improve with a strengthening of our tax base.

The overstatement you make re the effects of mining tax changes, is not unlike "the same thing we should expect from Mining Giants went they tell us, "that we are all at risk of losing that which we already have".

Clearly the resources we own are ours, and all the rants and/or hysterical extrapolations from the mining lobby will not change the fact in Australia we (meaning us) have very attractive resources that belong to us, the very same resources that are the subject of the current negotiations.

The only way we are at risk of not receiving equitable capital benefits from our resources, for the health and wealth of our economy, is by allowing multinational miners to dictate the terms of our agreements with them, and/by electing leaders sympathetic to their view. Eg Abbott and Co.

Yabby,
All the so called ad homs that up set you, if you checked come from your keyboard I merely repeated them.

By the way just as to add information note these two BBC posts http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8686788.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8637388.stm
On the last one refer to the latter paragraphs.
Q&A last night Lindsay Tanner added valuable information as to the writing off of losses and other variations that the mining industry has asked for.
A genius know it all like you would clearly know that the RBA has said that the mining boom is creating inflation and pressure on interest rates. Which will impact everyone other than miners
While they didn't endorse the Miners tax they would clearly like to take some heat off. "they would prefer a more measured, slower growth rate" I think that was *their* words.

I must admit I'm concerned that everyone else is not running around like headless chooks as you indicate we should be

Thinker 2, like a lot of people who depend on someone else to provide employment for them, you have a silly idea of how much profit many small busuness make.

In the mid 60s I had a quite successful exchange remanufactured auto components business. It employed 26 people, mostly semiskilled, & most trained by me. It was growing, & I was building an asset, but again, you may be surprised how little a moderate business can be sold for.

As a labour intensive business it was very sensitive to productivity, which made the period between christmas eve, & mid May quite difficult.

65% of the staff wanted annual holidays at that period. There were so many public holidays that getting more than 30 hours production from the staff was difficult, & many government charges come in at that time. Also usually, you had nothing you could use to delay paying your provisional tax any longer, at the same time. It was also a time when many of your customers became a bit slow paying their accounts, for the same reason.

If I could have paid all these costs from cash flow I would have been very happy. I would have loved to make enough proffit to take home as much money as I payed the 2 apprentices, but I couldn't. I had to have at least 20% of my gross turnover sitting uselessly in the bank on Christmas eve, if I was to pay all my costs on time, for that next four & a half months.

Any unexpected extra cost was very hard to handle.

I actually made more money, sailing around the Pacific islands, working an average of 30 weeks a year for the plantations & missions around the place, than employing 26 people. It was not that they were not good people, either, but many business aren't all that proffitable, unless you are a rip off merchant.

Examinator, Lynsay Tanner knows as little about business as you do,
and that is the problem with this Govt. Running trade unions and
running large mining companies are very different.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RSPT-rent-tax-resources-Wayne-Swan-Lindsay-Tanner-pd20100518-5KA3F?OpenDocument&src=sph

Yes, the Govt is running scared, dreaming up one excuse an hour
to justify their super tax, for they never expected the outrage.
Miners were an easy target. No so!

If less mining is what they wanted, why did Martin Ferguson go around
threatening oil companies, that if they did not develop their
resources, they could lose their licenses? Just months ago?

If less economic activity is what they wanted, why did they throw
around 40$ billion $ of taxpayers borrowed money?

Pull the other one.

Don't blame miners if house prices increase in Sydney. The Govt
has only itself to blame on that one and that is why the RBA has
increased interest rates.

Thinker 2

"What I am saying TM is that Australia's credit rating wont change as a result of the mining tax changes. Australia's credit rating might even improve with a strengthening of our tax base. "

Moodys warn credit rating may drop.
MINING companies' profits could be slashed by a third under the Rudd government's proposed resource super-profits tax, forcing credit rating downgrades.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/tax-to-cut-miners-profits-by-a-third-moodys/story-e6frg8zx-1225868383597

Now we have the Chinese threatening import tax on Australian iron ore. Not real smart throwing a hissy fit over foreign investors making money on our resources when them buying them is keeping our economy ticking along. Some other murmurs of copy cate rent taxes will possibly push China to adopt such policy to ensure it doesn't not become a global trend.

So we end with higher interest rates and higher commodity prices.

I mean really, oh dear we have to slow down the mining sector? The government has being throwing stimulus money around like confetti, banks lending to any takers, highest private debt in the world and it is the miners over heating the economy?

Anways global finaces are in a mess so playing with fire imo. It may work but why take such a risk when we have no real need to. We give our resources up a litle too cheaply but then we have also taken cheaper resources for our financial advantages, expecially human, from other nations. We probably have taken more than we have given truth be told.

At 6 AM when no one was listening, A.B.C Radio Monica Attard was aired interviewing a spokesman from the O.E.C.D. In 3 loaded questions in a row she tried to get this official to say something bad about the R.R.Tax proposal.

He said he thought it ( the R.R.Tax ) was the correct thing to do for Australia, especially if spent on Infrastructure etc.

Monica said "but wont it effect investment in mining"?. He said absolutely not, because it is demand that drives investment in mining not tax changes. He then went on to say that Australia was extremely well placed re China and was wise to consider a strong continuing relationship with China's demand for minerals.

Again Monica insisted "but what about falling Australian Mining share prices" he said share prices are falling world over at this time , because of the European situation and the new mining tax proposition is not the reason mining shares are falling in Australia.

This outlines the interview but the thrust was that it's demand not tax that rules the mining industry.

He also mentioned the spike in profits that mining companies have had over the last 10 yrs or more that has not been reflected in the royalty system, and that allowing this to continue was probably a mistake.

I think that about covers your last post TheMissus.

I still think that Big Money Spin( the subject of my original post ) is a danger to all.

If we allow the onslaught we are about to see, on our TV's and in our Newspapers,
affect our judgement as they talk this up and talk this down adinfinitum, you know your super is going down, your housing price will go up etc; "all because of a tax change?", try and keep it in perspective. Thats all I'm saying TM, it's not end of the world as we know it.

Best thing is, with the new tax that "if they make more money so do we ! , isn't that good?.

*This outlines the interview but the thrust was that it's demand not tax that rules the mining industry.*

Ah, but that depends from whose perspective, thinker 2.

For an Australian mining company, no matter what the demand is,
if the risk of investing all that capital does not leave a
reasonable profit, why bother mining? You can stick it in the
bank, risk free, at 6-7%, not even bother getting out of bed.

So net return on investment risked, drives Australian mining
companies. For BHP for instance, the most profitable thing
to mine is oil, in places like the Gulf of Mexico etc. Far
more profitable then hard rock mining in Australia.

So why should they risk 22 billion $ on expanding their
South Australian operations, if there is better money to be
made on that return elsewhere? Too bad for South Australia.

Demand is driven by China and yes, the Chinese will move in
and mine those minerals in Australia. How much tax do you
think they will pay you?

I think Yabby , that China will pay what they needs to pay to meet it's demand in the end.

The BHP example your using ( I suspect ) might be easiest transition case you could find in isolation, when the truth is, that for the most part Australia would still be an attractive place for Multi-national Miners despite the Tax changes.

I have a problem enjoying commentary from Magnates who banter about the Investment they made in a country in the past , as being motivated by their desire to act for the benefit of that country. Profits have nothing to do with it ? . I ask myself.

It's possible that mining investment could be lost because of the Mining Tax Yabby, but not likely. As supply and demand and market forces march on.

*It's possible that mining investment could be lost because of the Mining Tax Yabby, but not likely.*

Its definate, Thinker 2, all you need to learn is to use a calculator.
How public mining companies operate, is very public and highly
scrutinised by the investment community.

*that China will pay what they needs to pay to meet it's demand in the end.*

China won't need to pay anything, under the new rules. All they need
is good accountants. You the taxpayer, under the present suggested
scheme, will even have to refund 40% of their costs!

Profits will be made in China. All very simple really.

*Profits have nothing to do with it ? *

Of course profits have something to do with it. That does not mean
that a magnate cannot care about the future of his country. Palmer
bought his iron ore assets for a song, 20 or so years ago, when
iron ore was worth nothing. Twiggy Forrest was the first bloke to
be able to put a project together, that was bankable and obtain the
finance. Either man never needs to work again. But I'm sure that
they would like to see Australia prosper, as would most Australians.

The fact is that highly qualified accountants are pointing out, that
some miners will pay up to 75% tax, as the super tax is on top of
all other taxes. When you have to hand over 75% of your efforts
thinker 2, most people can't be bothered to get out of bed,
quite frankly. I certainly would not. For what?

Perhaps it might teach governments not to put all of their eggs in one basket. Past governments have been sold on the level playing fields/global economy claptrap and allowed our industries to be closed down and taken off shore. We now sell our resources for little instead of value adding and developing industries in our own country.
My impression of level playing fields and global economy says World bank/USA/cheap labour. Multi nationals have always gone to where they can offer beads and bangles until they have completely raped the country of third world economies or the world bank offers large loans that can never be repaid and the tell the governments of that country what they have to do. Result=exploitation, pollution, starving citizens of that country.
Our governments allow tax breaks for the companies that are not available to the rest of the public.
That is, after their highly paid taxation accountants have used every loophole to show they have not really made a big profit. Remember Packer a few years ago published in his newspaper and boasting he had no taxable income?
Consider the quality of our resources and then consider the costs to these companies of having to close their operations in Australia and then re-build again in another country for as long as the resource supply is available.
Somehow I have a feeling this is their way of trying to frighten the government away from having them pay a fair price for the resources.
Remember when they have stripped these resources then it will not re-generate, although granted the resources will last for many years, probably longer than we will supply, so cynically, it will be the future generations who will suffer.
I have been an employer for most of my life, only the latter years I worked as a consultant to the government and later as a Public Servant, so I am not strictly a union man. I do support a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and give respect to those who contribute a valuable resource in their skills, experience and knowledge.

The thinker
I think that about covers your last post TheMissus

No it doesn't as banks will not finance some projects now. NPV affected now so it is asking banks to take risk on in a climate when they have been asked to be more prudent.

If you say markets have not been affected already by this you are not in the investment world. How much by can be discussed but it is pure ignorance to suggest no market impact The market is fuming. I cannot believe anyone could actually suggest it.

Besides it is simply going to other rich big business, it is economic policy not social policy, All these rambling by geenies how it will save resoucres FALSE, How it will be fair for all Australians, FALSE I wish people would actually read a bit into to before they make all these stupid claims.

I am not sure if this will sink our economy but there is no denying the risk. A very real risk and the reward is what? Higher superannuation 10 years away when only 1/3 companies will be given offsetting tax cuts funded by rspt? The ability to avoid tax through transfer pricing and vertical integrationa/mergers whereas royalty is not negotiable or avoidable. Blind freddy can see this is a tax grab to fund the hole our government has spent itself into and to make the claim all Australian will benefit IS A TOTAL LIE.

I wish anyone that wants to make this claim actually offer some proof as to how.

Also plenty of graphs going around that prove our dollar got dumped moreso than other countries that are commodity related like Indonesia and Canada. In spite of Reserve Bank attempt to prop it up a week after Rudd said he wanted it to sink so Indian students got a better exchange rate. ?? And the wrold is supposed to see us as smart?

professor-au >> governments have been sold on the level playing fields/global economy claptrap and allowed our industries to be closed down and taken off shore. We now sell our resources for little instead of value adding and developing industries in our own country. <<

Prof, the "Lima Declaration" (1975) on international industrial development was the roadmap to our economic and societal degeneration.
In short the U.N, World Bank, and the IMF set up manufacturing in the third world for big business. This manufacturing movement from the first to the third world was touted as a humanitarian "share the wealth" exercise, supposedly to the benefit of the plebs. But all it has achieved is to turn an agri slave into a factory slave. The Money is the only winner.

An outline on what the Lima deal did for Australia.

The Lima Declaration is an agreement to wind down Australian manufacturing by around 30% and to import that amount from other preferred Countries together with as much primary produce as we can consume. Such as fruit, meat etc. In conjunction all tariffs imposed on imports will be phased out. The 30% was a target that has now blown out; current estimates are that 90% of our production capacity has gone.

How has the government wound down the incentive to produce? Simply by making an un-level playing field. Increase taxes, interest rates, the cost of employing people (without the worker gaining any benefit), remove import duty and industry protection, legislate environmental planning controls. All these things in combination destroy our ability to produce.
How does The Lima Declaration affect me?
* Simply 50% of the productive Australian workforce becomes unemployed.
* Taxes on the remainder in employment increases, to pay for the unemployed
* With new shortage of income you are forced to buy cheaper -- imports, or go without thereby aggravating the spiral of well planned economic transfer (oppression)

Welcome to Australia in the millennium, well all first world nations really including, America, we are all screwed.

The Lima Declaration and then GATT, we are done turn us over please.

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/lima/

Sheesh, luckily Hawke and Keating were smart enough to start removing
import duties! Who benefits? All consumers, especially the poor.

All that import duties were doing was making competitive export
industries less competitive, by carrying that additional cost
burden.

Industry run by the Melbourne Club, where shoddy goods were forced
on consumers by local monopolies, finally ended!

Why on earth should Australia make toasters, if others do it far
better then us? Best we do things where we have a comparitive
advantage and the things we are good at.

Today the average Australian is better off then 25 years ago,
for this very reason.

Yabby I appreciate your comments, my issue is that compared to 25 years ago we have a plethora of products that came because of technology rather than disposable income. I recall a the seventies, I had a car, I had a motor bike, I had a boat, I had a roof over my head and food in my stomach and the great Aussie weekend was always great......and if I did not like the job I had today, I could find another tomorrow.
Regarding youth employment of the era, you pick an apprenticeship and you were guaranteed of a place, unless you were a zero. Kids now go to year 12 and are lucky to get a job in McDonalds or KFC, that is where their sights are set because that is the only opportunity this free trade economy has bequeathed them. Yabby that cheap toaster has cost billions.

The cheap toaster has saved people billions! How much do you think
those 10$ shirts would cost, if they were all made here? Where would
the labour come from to make them? We can't even find enough meat
workers now in WA, Aussies don't want those crappy jobs anymore,
they have things too easy.

Twenty five years ago, the average Aussie home was 13 squares,
now its 25 squares, air conditioned, with a flat screen tv.

Look at the social services available today, compared to then.
Pensions for unmarried mothers, councillors for every thing imaginable, etc. Supernnuation for every worker. The list goes
on.

Society is free to organise more trade places. I've asked a few
tradesmen why they don't take on an apprentice, many say its
simply not worth it. Many have a real attitude problem, don't
really want to work, cost a fair bit to employ and its simply not
worth it for them. That has nothing to do with globalisation.

The average wage today in real terms is higher then it was 25 years
ago. There are plenty of young blokes around who have all the
things you had and more, but they get off their butts and go to
where the work is, like in the mining areas.

Half of our problem today is that people are boxed up in Sydney,
Melbourne and the Gold Coast and if there is not the kind of work
they want within half an hour of their house, they are simply
not interested.

Expectations have risen dramatically, that is the real problem.

Thank you Prof-au for your interesting post and I totally agree that Mining Giants have taken a dreadful toll in third world countries and many of your other points. Some great examples of Big Money Spin at work.

Yabby you make a balanced observation when you speak of Palmer and Forrest, who are of course entitled to be considered Australian's as well, and I'm sure there is no black and white here, but shades of grey, some particular instances make good fodder for emotive thinking.

If they (Twiggy and Palmer) are interested in their country and if (in truth) they can afford to contribute more to their countries economy, then why would they think it objectionable that they should contribute more.

This whole more thing itself, is a red herring, because this whole Henry Tax change idea is not about quantity , so much as method. This is a change from the current royalty system to the "tax on profits system" as I understand it.

I have already said that under this new tax regime" if the miners make more money we do too, isn't that good.

What is wrong with that ?, even if your politically right of Ghengis Khan.

For the Govt and Opposition it now seems to be an argument about just how much tax that miners actually do pay. Abbott effectively declaring today that miners pay too much tax.

I think on this occasion everyone should take a deep breath, and not acquiesce to predictions of worst case scenario's by vested interests and negotiate.

It's in our best interests

Well what do you know, people should negotiate, thinker tells us.

That is of course what that idiot Rudd should have done, BEFORE he anounced his ripp off of the mining industry. He should have done that quietly, & had agreement, with the miners, before shooting his fool mouth. The grass hopper man had landed, & another catastrophe was in train.

The miners know they have had a good run, & would have come to the party. After being called all sorts of names by our special dill, they may now be a bit harder to work with.

Next we have the sight of Ruddy, a multi millionaire shooting off his mouth, exploiting the politics of envy, with the usual camp followers cheering him on. IT's hard not to be disgusted.

Thinker

If we make mroe money form miners nodpby will cmapin/

Why don't you start a movement to demand the receipts go to a sovereign wealth fund that governemnt gcasnnnot help thesmlves to. A real transfer of wealth to the people and to future generations.

I guarantee you they will drop the tax like a hot potatoe becasue transfering wealth to ordinary Australians is not their agenda and is not going to happen.

However we have the right to demand that money be preserved as it is in other nations for the people, not for a plundering government.

*they can afford to contribute more to their countries economy, then why would they think it objectionable that they should contribute more.*

Thinker 2, that is exactly what miners have been doing with their
profits! Given the growth in demand from China, India etc, they
have been reinvesting nearly all profits back into expanding
production, to cope with increased demand, contributing to the
economy in terms of exports created, jobs created, taxes paid.

But to develop at iron ore mine, plus build a railway hundreds of
km long to get the stuff to the port, plus to build the port,
takes billions. If a bloke like Twiggy can't use profits to do it,
what do you expect him to do?

Mining is not like Mrs Rudd did, ie open an office and shuffle a
few papers, make some phone calls etc. One single Haulpack truck
alone, costs many millions of $.

*This is a change from the current royalty system to the "tax on profits system" as I understand it.*

Its a grab by Canberra for more money. Royalties belong to the
States, as minerals belong to the States, not Canberra. Or does
our constitution not matter anymore?

Miners don't have a problem with paying their fare share, but as
Peter Costello points out, when Govts want more then 50%, people
get pissed off and I don't blame them. Its a question of fairness
here. You are free to benefit form mining at any time, by making
a few clicks online and buying some BHP shares. They will even
send you regular reports, so you start to understand what
mining is all about and how it functions and why.

As is being pointed out, negotiation should have taken place months
ago, not this gun to everyone's head by the Govt, already including
royalties in the budget. Arrogant sods.

Spending money on your own requirements e.g. railways for iron ore transport etc is not the same thing as spending money on essential services infrastructure etc Yabby.

It's good that jobs were created but when iron ore is gone, all that will be left is a railway to nowhere and all the spin off businesses along the way will be gone as well as the jobs, and Multinational Miners will ultimately become fair weather friends.

Whilst the Rudd policy release strategy may be blunt, perhaps the Mining Lobby would have been just as loud in it's dissent, no matter what they did.

As well Yabby there is no flowery history of benevolent behaviour from M.M.Corps that I can recall. I wish there was but I agree with you, that that does not mean that there are no good people in the Mining Industry. No doubt there are.

I still fail to see how a tax on Super profits means 50 % or more tax across the entire cost of tax for Miners, and have to agree with Costello who stated the obvious but I'm not sure Costello's assumption applies in this case.

And finally Yabby I said " if (in truth) " they can afford to pay more why would they mind paying.Your excerpt misrepresented my position.

My question now is "can they or can't they afford it".

Both sides of politics think this relevant because they currently scramble to quantify this for us, and probably this is now the ultimate question that will decide the fate of this tax proposal.

*Spending money on your own requirements e.g. railways for iron ore transport etc is not the same thing as spending money on essential services infrastructure etc Yabby.*

Hang on, whoah there! That very infrastructure created the wealth
to let BHP alone, pay 6.3 billion$ in taxes last year. Not
to mention taxes from staff, contracters, suppliers and their
suppliers. Without it Thinker 2, you would be dressed in banana
leaves, in a banana republic. How can you say its less important?

Building that very infrastructure, created thousands upon thousands
of well paid jobs, generated taxes etc.

* It's good that jobs were created but when iron ore is gone,*

So what timeframe are you talking here, Thinker 2? After you die,
your children die or your grandchildren die? Or their children die?
Do you know much about WA's iron ore deposits?

How long are you trying to predict into the future here? 100 years?
200 years? Can you even predict 10 years ahead? I bet you cannot.

*I still fail to see how a tax on Super profits means 50 % or more tax across the entire cost of tax for Miners*

Quite easy. 40% superprofits is only one tax paid. There is still
company tax to pay as well, which is another 30%. We won't even
mention payroll and other taxes on top of that.

You seem to be under the illusion that the 40% superprofits tax
will replace comapany tax. Not so, both have to be paid under the
new scheme.

*My question now is "can they or can't they afford it". *

That is your perspective. But you need to have somebody voluntarily
risk their savings on these ventures. Are you prepared to risk your
lifesavings on a mining venture, where the Govt plans to take up
to 75% of any profits?

Or would you rather put it in the bank, safe, paying much less
tax?

Yabby;
>>The average wage today in real terms is higher then it was 25 years
ago.<<

Cost of Living 1975 Aust
Average Cost of new house $39,300.
Average Income per year $10,400.
Average Monthly Rent $160.00
Cost of a liter of petrol .44 cents
Average cost new car $3,750.00

Cost of Living 2010 Aust
Average Cost of new house $550,000
Average Income per year $65,400.
Average Monthly Rent $1400.
Cost of a liter of petrol $1.34 cents
Average cost new car $35,800.

In 1975 I could just about buy 3 cars with the average wage.
In 2010 I could nearly buy two.
In 1975 I could pay a house off in less than 4 years.
In 2010 it will take me nine.

Yabby as I said do not consider the plethora of appliances and creature comforts we enjoy today as a benchmark to our standard of living. You can have the latest technology and still be on the street tomorrow if you do not own the floor you stand on, and less Aussies own the floor they stand on now, than we did in 1975. Ain’t better now, excluding the technology. So in real terms we are not better off Household savings in Aust declined from a peak of 18% of household gross disposable income in 1975 to a trough of 2% in 2009. Yabby I could go onto the utility charges and municipal/ state taxes in 1975 vs 2010, but it is more of the same in comparative outcome, we were better off back then

Sonofgloin, indeed we have a housing bubble, which affects those
wanting to live closer to the CBD. But the actual cost of building
a house is still quite reasonable. I can buy a house for half
your figures, if its further from the CBD. Next once again,
today consumers have options when it comes to things like a car.
There are plenty available for half your quoted figures.

High land values closer to the CBD are a result of Govt policy,
Govt is free to change them, reduce migration etc.

Yet so many other things are cheaper and better, due to imports
and low tariffs. If they were made here, they would cost a fortune.
So we are indeed better off in real terms.

I think you'd find that if you stuck the average family back into
a 3 by 1 fibro, at 12 or 13 squares, they would soon be pissed off
too.

Yes, people save less, but shut down the pokies and alot would
save more. People spend because they can, not because they have
to. Big difference

can they or can't they afford it".

Even if they can why bother with the risk for giving the big end of town a tax cut?

Henry said the mining industry has been in deep recession. So we are taxing an industry that is slowing down to give to boom industries?

I actually see this as raping regional Australian (AGAIN) to give money to the big cities. Iam sorry but I am damn sick of this. Perhaps Australia should split up.

Makes no sense.

Yabby these miners were not here to pay the tax for the benefit of Australia and were actually mainly here for the profits. But are you advocating a tax cut for miners at this time? as the Tony Abbot has said

I read your posts with interest and you make your points well, but then your synopsis goes to far by making the assumption that the new tax regime means 75% tax for miners.

Ken Henry also said in affect, that during the 09 downturn (GFC), that had other businesses reacted the way Mining Corps did in Australia unemployment would have gone from 4.6 % to over 19 % . Henry deeply criticised Mining Companies for their behaviour at that time, and added they were not in fact the backbone of recovery at all.

Says something about job security in the mining industry I think as well Yabby, and their less than benevolent attitude to their own employee's is not all that Aussie, is it ?.

Sonofgloin understands how economics effect real people I think.

And I agree TheMissus the regional situation and the environment are major concern for this country, but I don't think that splitting up the federation, is an option, or makes a lot of sense either

*Yabby these miners were not here to pay the tax for the benefit of Australia and were actually mainly here for the profits.*

Thinker 2, these miners are corporations like other corporations,
made up of hundreds of thousands of people who own shares in them,
because they saved a bit, rather then blow it at the pokies.

Those people care about Australia as much as you do. In fact, if
you have money in a super fund, which nearly all Australians do,
then you do own a share of these miners and the profits which
they generate.

Corporations are simply large entities, where many individuals can
pool their money, to invest in large projects. Something like
40% of Australians own shares directly. Its your choice, blow
it at the pokies or save a few bob for a rainy day.

All those grey nomads travelling around the country, they are people
who saved all their lives, most of them own shares, after having sold
their businesses, or cashed in their super, or being sent regular
cheques from their super fund.

*but then your synopsis goes to far by making the assumption that the new tax regime means 75% tax for miners.*

Yes indeed, a top accountant who understands the new tax and
mining, calculated that some miners could be paying up to 75%,
depending on their situation. Once again, this 40% tax is on top
of company tax. They have to pay both, meaning that many will pay
way over 50%, which people like Peter Costello and myself, think
is a ripp off.

Yabby you draw on many salient facts in regard to finding a cheaper house, cheaper car, etc.
The information I submitted is drawn from stats, both government and commercial. The costs are a mean of sales data from the relative year in Australia; they are the average and governed by the market. Simply put we were better off in 1975 no matter how we try to trade off our myriad of "creature comforts" now, against financial security of then.

But I do join you my friend in wanting the best for our minnow of a country. I appreciate what we have got, everyday.

TheMissus;
>>I actually see this as raping regional Australian (AGAIN) to give money to the big cities. Iam sorry but I am damn sick of this. Perhaps Australia should split up.<<

Besides the splitting up part, exactly so.
In regard to natural resources, the company that reaps the benefit of the resource, after reaching a predetermined EBIT figure should directly input funds for infrastructure projects in that community and district. That would be of direct benefit to we Australians rather than it going into consolidated revenue, and it would further stimulate local employment.

*Simply put we were better off in 1975 no matter how we try to trade off our myriad of "creature comforts" now, against financial security of then.*

Sonofgloin, your dream of financial security then died, the day
that nylon was invented. Then a host of other materials. Australia
paid its bills by riding on the sheep's back, because the world had
little but cotton or wool to choose from, for decade after decade.
All that changed with the invention of synthetics.

Today the wool industry is little but a niche industry, the merino
has basically died.

If you check out the RBA reasoning, you soon see why the median
house price is what it is. Its not the poorest, borrowing all that
money to buy a house. Its double income professionals, many without
kids, uptrading to ever more fashionable, ever closer to the CBD,
flash houses and units.

They buy because they can, because they earn incomes in jobs that
simply did not exist in the 70s. The finance industry is a prime
example. Thousands of people work for places like Maquarie Bank
and they don't work for peanuts either. Those sorts of incomes
drive up house prices, close to city centres.

In my town you can still buy a reasonable home for 200k$-250k$.

In fact, around here you can buy 100 acres for 150K$. Add a home
for 150k$ building cost and for 300k$ you won't have a neighbour
anywhere near you!

Yet alot of these people here are doing just that, then going to
work in the mines, fly in fly out. Rio pays their train drivers
around 200k$ a year. They are creaming it all the way.

Regardless of all this then and now stuff, It's fair to say that subject of the day Is Big Money Spin.

It now appears that both sides of Politics see the electorate as gullible : in that, both sides feel a need to advertise their point.

The Gov't may be even making a point frankly, when it elects to advertise it's perspective re Resource Rent tax, if that perspective reflects the true, accurate, quantifiable truth. It could be considered in the national interest to counter any avalanche of spin from vested interests, who may be able and willing to use their position and sheer financial grunt to swing results in their direction.

The Mining Industry's current diatribe seems to consist of talking the Australian economy down out of their own perceived self interest. If this is in fact what they are doing? then I would like to be aware of this in fact.

*if that perspective reflects the true, accurate, quantifiable truth.*

We now know exactly where the integrity lies, Thinker 2, and its
not with the Govt. But I guess they will use taxpayers money
to feed out their spin, to suck in people like yourself.

Just look at the tax figures. When BHP confronts treasury, they
admit that BHP now pays tax at around 43% of net income, yet the
Govt tries to spin that out as not being so, because miners are
entitled to deductions for depreciating plant etc. Well I would
frigging hope so, the plant wears out and depreciates, its a valid
business deduction.

Tax rates are documented and known, deductions for business
expenditure are documented and known. To now try and spin the
figures, that even though say company tax is legislated at 30%
of net income, miners never actually paid 30% of net income,
is a bit of a joke and makes their tax office look like fools.

Either companies pay 30% company tax or they don't. If they don't
why doesen't the tax office haul them before the courts? Reason
being, because they do. That's why BHP coughed up 6.3 billion $
last year.

Australia needs to learn not to rely on a one-company policy (resources) to ensure the economy of the country.
This has led Governments to compromise the future of Australia. Also, by allowing international companies to buy up profitable Australian companies, asset strip them and close them down as no longer profitable. Gutting a business and getting rid of staff will undoubtedly make them unprofitable. It is just a way of getting rid of competition.
I saw a textile company bought by an overseas company then shortly after, sack the employees and remove all of the plant and equipment, to be smashed so no one else could buy and start up in competition. This is not an isolated instance. In other industries you will find other examples, hence we now have little industrial base left.
The present PR exercise to people urgently seeking a future is to claim the electronics industry and information is the future.
For Whom? Well that is a big maybe! When companies are outsourcing overseas there is little future to Australia citizens.
Look at the communication system, gas, electricity and water Try and get service and you will be directed to someone overseas who does not speak English and you will waste a long time waiting to be contacted (if) by someone who can help.
Even government departments are out sourcing supplies or employing consultants from outside of the country or areas where they are operating. Australian citizens are not being employed.
continued.

Our manufacturing industry constantly threatens governments that it is planning to move off shore to a country that have cheaper labour. The government then hands out a large subsidy to keep them here for the next 4 years (political decision, government plan on terms of election {4 years}.
The process then starts again. These companies gain both ways. Free Government subsidies and also a reduction of employee numbers.
The top-heavy management is more often the major cost problem. I include greedy shareholders, most of who live in other countries and is not interested in the future of the country, only profit.
The larger a company became and, I include government departments, the larger its administrative departments become with not necessarily any larger productive increase or a production increase that is not proportional to administrative level increases. Their executive management grant increases in salaries out of proportion to any wage increases for their workers; that is if they are given a wage increase.
These Executives receive the increases regardless of whether they are successful or failures.
To protect their territory administration will argue that the wage costs of production are too high and they then stop training or get rid of production staff.
I am not convinced that wages is the issue. Compare the cost of relocation and having train ill-educated cheap labour and or semi automating the productions and then compare the cost of well-trained experienced and knowledgeable work force. Automating some aspects of manufacturing is reasonable.
BHP is an example of an Australian company that got greedy for increased profit and went overseas to build an automated steel mill. It had exploited Australians to build it success and did little upgrading of its plant and equipment and when it got to a stage where it needed major upgrad3es decided to go overseas. It could have just as well upgraded in Australia, where Australians could be employed building value added resources.
continued

We have downgraded our quarantine system to allow the political needs of this global, etc claptrap, jeopardising our own stock, plant and fauna.
We sell rural food production to overseas countries wanting clean uncontaminated produce, then, under the level playing fields/global economy plan, we import foodstuff contaminated with heavy metals, chemicals etc. to feed our own people.
I could go on and on describing the failure of successive government to protect the interests of Australia.
It is time for a government to plan for the future of Australia and its citizens and not for the benefit of shareholders in other countries who have no interest in Australia apart from raping it and exploiting it.

Yabby>> Either companies pay 30% company tax or they don't. If they don't why doesen't the tax office haul them before the courts? Reason
being, because they do. That's why BHP coughed up 6.3 billion $
last year.<<

Well said and factual, but there is another factor that may explain why all OECD governments have been milking us dry with levies and secondary taxes on everything we do and consume.
The average Corporate tax rate in all OECD countries in the last 20 years have fallen from 45% to 30%, Australia included.

Have a look at how this downturn has effected us over the past six years.


2003-04/ 2004-05/ 2005-06/ 2006-07/ 2007-08/ 2008-09

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT Total taxation revenue
209,560- 229,131- 245,223- 261,988- 285,672- 278,002- $million

STATE GOVERNMENTS Total taxation revenue
40,410- 41,667- 44,246- 48,870- 53,130- 50,627- $million

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Total taxation revenue
7,671- 8,183- 8,726- 9,404- 10,128- 10,874- $million

TOTAL FROM COMBINED LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT Total taxation revenue
257,269- 278,577- 297,760- 319,752- 348,330- 358,878- $million

Bloody amazing less company tax but we lucky Aussies get a growth in taxes collected.

In 2008/2009 taxes on income totalled 60% of total taxation revenue. Taxes on goods and services represented 25.0% of total taxation revenue.

That means that corporate and business tax represents 15% of that years tax revenue,this figure does not undermine the fact that corporates are paying 30% tax, but some one is not paying enough when you look at the GDP growth for Australia,1975/$95 billion...1985/$177 billion...1995/$361 billion...2005/$675 billion...2009/$1 TRILLION.

Some one is making a load of money really quick. It can only be the mining segment, as the agri business has just come out of a ten year drought, and we manufacture nothing.

But in saying all this I know Rudd needed a cash cow and mining popped out, with a Rudd govt we won't get any value from it.

Sounds logical Sonofgloin except figures you present are from growth itself inc population and drawing default conclusions, such less company tax = more revenue , is just plain misleading.

Greed is the reason why manufacturing is non-existent in Australia not taxation, and moving away from being the worlds quarry wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway.

I remember a time before the Howard reign where our strategy was to become a clever country, not reliant upon mining or farming.

Rudd had to defer the ETS because of Abbott and the Greens and for all those who say they would have voted Rudd if he hadn't deferred it, imagine the massive weight of Big Money Spin we would now be experiencing over taxes and emissions trading, with Abbott and Co cheering from the sidelines.

Forget about Rudd, the integrity of people like Tony Abbott and Palmer etc willing to manipulate public opinion in their favour out of nothing more than self interest is not the pursuit of the virtuous.

And finally this countries resource fortune belongs to it's people not Mining Giants. Clive Palmer deliberately misleads when he refers to a Commonwealth cash grab as the proceeds are to be spent on us, not retain in Govt coffers.

It is now a game of chess with the Govt being forced to make an exception to it's own advertising expenditure guidelines. I accept, that this is the Govts only option. Combating BMS is in this case is in the national interest.

Because the Govt had set such high standards, the mining industry obviously thought the Govt defenceless in this area. This is the main reason they have gone so hard in advertising this issue. This time they thought they could sway opinion absolutely with their advertising dollars. The Govt has had to move out of check.

Australia's Mining Industry is not in danger from this Tax change. The Industry in Australia will not suffer 1 iota, because the resource that we are talking about is increasing in value as we speak. All bunkam aside, perhaps we should nationalise the Mining Industry

Sonofgloin, your figures don't make a lot of sense, are you even
allowing for dividend imputation? Keating was smart enough to realise
that income should only be taxed once, not twice.

*Greed is the reason why manufacturing is non-existent in Australia*

Thinker 2, consumer choice is the reason. People vote with their
wallets every day. Are you suggesting that the average Australian
is too greedy? there is actually still a large manufacturing
industry out there, they just don't make toasters and other consumer
products anymore, but make lots of mining equipment, ferries,
trucking equipment and other heavy engineering. They struggle for
labour, as many people don't want hard work jobs like welding anymore.
Go to Perth airport cargo and you'll see them flying out all sorts
of mining equipment parts, for destinations around the world.

*All bunkam aside, perhaps we should nationalise the Mining Industry*

Hehe, it were up to Govt, we would not even know that these resources
existed! I remind you that Bob Menzies used to ban iron ore exports,
as it was thought that Australia had little or none. You would not
know if there was gas or oil out there, unless somebody spends
25 million$ a hole to find out.

Given that your Govt cannot even distribute pink batts efficiently,
how on earth do you think they would suddenly become efficient miners?

You are dreaming, Thinker 2, floating on the clouds

thinker 2>> Sounds logical Sonofgloin except figures you present are from growth itself inc population and drawing default conclusions, such less company tax = more revenue , is just plain misleading.<<

There is certainly merit in what you say. Consider the view I offer as macro rather than micro. The point is that the amount of tax revenue taken from us by the states has grown by 25% in six years, and the tax revenue from the feds has grown by 33% in six years, and they have blown it, and had to borrow. The mining tax is a way out for Rudd the spend thrift.

Just to keep some perspective on the spoils we argue over.

"In 2009, 3 percent of Australia GDP was contributed to by agricultural sector and 26.4 percent came from industrial sector (mining accounting for 7 percent of that). Service sector contributed 70.6 percent of Australia's GDP."

Until I found these figures I had the misapprehension that mining contributed a load more than 7% to the GDP. It does make me recalculate what the industry threats to moth ball new projects means in real terms, given I over valued their contribution.

Yabby>> Sonofgloin, your figures don't make a lot of sense, are you even
allowing for dividend imputation? Keating was smart enough to realise
that income should only be taxed once, not twice.<<

Yabby these figures are not company EBIT results. They are from the taxation office and simply display a six year growth of tax revenue to the govt. Div imputation has nothing to do with it. But as I said to Thinker you are right in regard to my conclusion getting lost on the way.

Sonofgloin, they might represent tax revenue, but it
would depend on the tax office accounting method.

BHP for instance, pay 6.3 billion$ in tax to Govts.
But that is not the end of it. Super funds and some
private individuals, pay less then 30% tax. So the
Govt would have to pass on that money to them and it
could not be calculated as income. Other individuals
pay more then 30%, they would have to pay extra on
those dividends.

So it really depends on which figures that you are
comparing, for net company tax income would vary,
depending on the income of shareholders and wether they
are Australian or not.

Yabby, can't disagree with that lot, but it gets away from the reason I quoted the ATO stats. Company tax was 45% in 1990; it is 30% soon to be 28% in 2010. In the last six years state taxes increased by 25% and federal by 33%. We are paying more personal taxes because corporate is paying less.
The mining segment is only 8% of GDP, while the service industry is 70%, but how do you tax an industry as diversified as the service segment, mostly small businesses, and a core of voters in their own right, you don't. You can't hook into the manufacturing industry; they’re on their knees now. So you hook into the eggs already in the basket, miner’s profit. No core of voters to upset, except the shareholders and they generally do not vote Labor.

If the Rudd govt had brought in the mining tax to fund the health system, it would be the sort of compassionate Labor policy that has lifted our standard of living. But it is being implemented to pay back the money we did not owe two and a half years ago. Instead of adding taxes, they should manage our money more constructively, they have plenty of it. Our tax revenue went up by 40% in the last six years and I don’t see anything around me that is 40% better. In fact it’s 40% worse.

*Company tax was 45% in 1990; it is 30% soon to be 28% in 2010.*

The reason they changed that, Sonofgloin, is to try and make
Australia competitive with the rest of the world. Many global
companies can pick and choose from where they operate. An
American company might base its SE Asian headquarters in
Sydney, Singapore or Hong Kong. Without corporate investment,
you don't have jobs, its as simple as that.

*Instead of adding taxes, they should manage our money more constructively,*

Ah, there we completley agree! The way Canberra pees money
up against walls, never ceases to amaze me. If I managed
my own money the way they waste my tax dollars, I would have
gone broke years ago.

That's why I liked Costello as treasurer. He spent alot of
this time arguing with Howard, as he felt the best place
for taxes was to give it back to taxpayers where possible.

the real issue...is re super/profits///thats just not about mining..BUT about all super/profit...like that bankers get...or anyione gets...thats abouve their basic income

see that a super proffit...is/should be based on a bonus
a special bonus...like set a basic wage...for managers....at a prorata/rate..average...and anything abouve that...gets a super tax

i watched abc/news...some room..filled with miners...in suits
the thought occured...what is THEIR GROSS INCOME...for the room of fatcats...

[ok it could just as easy have been a room full of bwankers...in 10,000 dollar suits...or footballers...'earning'...6 million per year

BUT THE CONCEPT IS SOUND....look at clever lawyers..[or accountants..they are GREAT at minimising..tax they owe...at the bottum,..of harbours....THESE CLASS..GET THE PERKS...and the bonus...GROSS BONUS/BRINGS DOWN THEIR TAX

well enough..is enough...the average footballer...gets 70,000..per anum...any more..they pay[25 percent...SUPER TAX...the average banker...gets 200,000...OK ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT..pay ya tax

the normal lawyer..gets..100,000..anything more...supertax it
yes you say..but some work harder...ok they prove it..and get compensated...

but the default being..the top 20 percent..pay the tax...in every area

some other things been bugging me...bhp..got income of 120 million[say]..but paid tax only on 20 million...why..BECAUSE..the rest went to fat cats...and buyouts...and new investment...ok we can live with this

BUT as a smoker..i got shafted..[no representation..should mean no tax...yeah right...the govt is bending over...so they can get shafted by the fat cats...yet again...they got govt ear...just lok at how..states..have gifted them with reducing royalties

govt[fed/govt/...should makle up the difference...any state,,plat\ying such games..simply loses..the royalty..they forfeited...

BUT FED MAKES SURE ITS PAID IN FULL..[if the states dont want it,FED should make sure..what is taken..is paid for..at a real value..full royalies

another thing..is to tax...those big machines..when they get exported/..our currency..devalued..to pay for that...tax em whenm they go overseas

they claimed tax deductions..thus they belong to govt/the people

further...those...jobs...lol..
they bring in workers..locals dont get them jobs

further...most sales are on forward con-tracts...many miners only are/..'miners'...to forward trade in metals...tax them too

we need a transaxction tax..one percent
we need an export tax..two percent
we ned a super gains tax...its time them fatcats paid their way

we pay for infastructure...they get the gain...its moraly corrupt

The figures you researched re GDP Sonofgloin are definite indicators or the real situation, it does illustrate the true picture , the mining segment is only 8% of GDP.

Your analysis Sonofgloin I agree with, I too, am most probably an aggrieved taxpayer. But I also think it possible, that as well as overstating the contribution that Mining makes in Australia vested interests overstate the extent of Australia's debt.

If the Rudd Govt had to bail out its banks, as was the case In the US and Europe etc the deficit would have been much worse for Australia so I think Australia,s deficit at this stage is manageable. Not overly excessive.

In fact Treasury predicts surplus in 3 yrs. Why isn't that, "where we would like to be in 3yrs" in any case ?.

THe Rudd Govt has been naive, in-experienced, even sloppy, but economically (big picture view), they haven't done too bad at all.

It just can't be a good thing, for a young democracy like Australia to allow an Industry contributing 8% of GDP and "a govt in exile" ruling from the Senate, blocking and frustrating advertise it's way to power, or to dictate the terms of the next election, through media manipulation.

We could have had an ETS except for the black knight, Tony Abbott stepping in, in defence of Big Business undermined Malcolm Turnbull's leadership and changed that. With or without the approval of the Greens we could have had an ETS.

And now we can have a mining tax, thats returns Australia's budget to surplus in 3 yrs adds to our national savings, infrastructure investment, provides tax cuts for small/ medium businesses etc . Not meaning to overstate the upside of an SPT for Miners.

*vested interests overstate the extent of Australia's debt.*

LOL Thinker 2, Australia owes a nett 1 trillion $! Not the Govt,
for Costello made sure that Govt debt was paid off. But the nation
as a whole, as our current account deficit runs around 5-6% most
of the time.

What that means is that we as a nation, need to pay our debts to
other nations, on a regular basis. We can't use seashells, so we
need hard currency, usually US $. Either we borrow them, or
we earn them, to pay up when international accounts are settled.

At present, our 4 main banks are carrying the load, as they go
cap in hand to international lenders, to borrow all that foreign
currency. If they did not do so, our Reserve Bank would have to
do it, for pay we must.

The moment that international lenders become nervous about our
level of debt, they'll shoot up interest rates, to cover the
higher risk that we pose. There won't be a thing that Govt can do
about it.

At the moment, international lenders look at our mining industry
and feel that we can eventually dig our way out and pay in the
longer term.

But our present smartarse mob of politicians are threatening
that, so we'll see how it all lands up.

Wealth is created by our export industries, Thinker 2. In Australia
that is farming and mining, basically.

The rest of you just shuffle it all around.

the old cray/yabby...makes a good point
yet is walking both sides of the fence...

as his quotes..shall reveal

<<..The rest of you just shuffle it all around>>
compare this with the ultimate...shuffle

<<the best place..for taxes/was to give it back to taxpayers where possible>>great shuffle...gabby...take from the poor...bailout/give infastructure to the rich...shuffle shuffle

next quote/gabby..<<..Wealth is created/by our export industries,>>>thats is only PARTLY...correct....most of the debts..THEY CREATE TOO...

[bhp../lent/owes..20 billion...
that bigfatpig...couldnt get his financing...[because china didnt give it to him...

yet only two weeks ago..he declared he got a 20 billion loan...to reap...60 billion of resources...lol for 800.mil.royalty...thats a joke/mate

lest we foreget..the banks own the farm...TOO..!

where did they/get the lucre...DEBT...
overseas...debt...FROM THE BANKERS...lol

who are so adept at lending/other/peoples...$$..it actually charges ursury..TO GOVT..to lend its own money...lol

<<In Australia..that is farming and mining,..basically.>>>yes that is true...they do create wealth...BUT...they al;so hold most of the debt

as your so good/at pointing out...you have to lend/money...to make money...but there my old mate...is the hitch...most of the elite...OWE more..than they got

the rich ...have credit...now
but/soon..to their discrace...they all shall default...

WHY?..because everything is mortgauged...multinationals...currently own 70 percent of..the stock/shares...and the banks/hold it all..as collateral

shuffiling the deck-chairs...isnt doing nothing bro
if debitor,,,debitor you be...and debitors..will/..shall all default

this is a house/of cards...govt presumed..to tax the people...allowing them credit..to buy that..they cannot afford

what happens..when THEIR credit gets withdrawn?
..the whole house of cards/defaults to the bankers...[or rather those who own...the credit..lent to the bank...ie the people]

the day of balancing/the books..draw's near./dear
those holding the mortgauge...will demand payment...

and the cash/cow...the peepole...have been drained dry
...yet they own/it all...!

and the leeches...[who owe...4/quadrillions...well they will be seen/faling from windows...while the ursurors...get the police..to seaze it all...or not get their bowl of soup

as said repeatedly...yabby...
you know not/the vile...you defend

how de-spirit..
those who think they are the clever/guys...think they are
they plan..to kill off the sheeple...

once they endebited them
as far as they dare go

tell me..are you sure..them shares...
are any more than paper/promises

when the do/do
hits the fan?

OUG, you don't have a worry in the world there. You just keep
smoking that weed, float on the clouds a bit, as you count
that silver under your bed, you are doing fine!

No need for you to worry about the rest of us :)

your a funny/boy..yabby

here is/the deal...let me run it/past you...to see..if..it will work?

i think..i will/..get a licence...to prospect..for minerals...
under your yabby ponds...and your sheep/shed...your house/tracter shed..and your bore

i wil pay..less than/..a hundred for this...
but i got heaps..to get this started,...

lets drill/some holes..leaving the drill-slop..all over your pasture...

uphill/..from ya yabby pond...[it has neat chemicals..to asist the drilling..so your yabbies..might/..get some evolution/mutation out of it

total cost...for a few drill-holes/licence..say 100 grand...[will sell..half my silver..but i get reports]..that have value

ok/now i go..to the labour-party...donate..a few thousand...

[buy a special seat..next to anna..talk to her...explain how yabbies/pond is sitting,..,dead-center of a coal-seam...

3 feet thick..only 3 meters..down

the reports/i have..say..is its worth..near 1 billion...of coal...let alone the coal-seam/gas...

so i get ana..to sign/some deal...
even..get her to come to china..to talk to the financer...

we only need..some in-fast-ructure..put in...
no worries there..seqeb...has just..upped/the price of electicity...[for infastructure....just like this]...so its a go...

i return..to the banker/..in china../with anna's asurance of infastructure...and my lease...plus the estimates..of the ore/body..
[that also is..my../col-lateral...in case i default...

and get one third/..upfront

for collateral..i use the minerals...UNDER YOUR YABBY POND...

[in fact/..i think i should be able to/use the banks money..not my silver...make a few payments...then get the big/payday

ahhhh..you just gotta love...free-enter/prize...
not only..eating my cake..but yours too...

oh i will sling/..a few shares arround..to the lib/nats..
even the greens...and sponcer a few..local football-teams..[and add/space in the media..to keep leverage over them

might even join rotery/..lions..
as well as the sportclubs

mate...its money in the bank...
and if we do make any money...we will give it..as bonus...
to the workers...me/you

we/should sell shares...that way were..a limited company...
the trust fund..buys nice/big house..pays the bills..trabns[port/acomidation..chafeur

and its all at arms length...lol
mate its great/in the sunshine-state

where did you live again?

im looking..to go exploring...just prospecting..ya know..lol

its we/who pay all the tax..
you lot..gotta give us everything you have/..then more

its great..in the sunshine state...!
its not to late...
get out there..and prospect/mate..

its not too late

OUG, the smoke from all that weed is now really getting to you.

A coal seam three foot thick? Sounds like that is enough to
keep the fire in your lounge going, that is about all :)

Plenty of farmers have actually done quite well out of farming.
For they will generally make an offer for the whole place,
about 3 times the market value, so farmers can buy a much
bigger and better place elsewhere.

OUG, there is no Anna here lol, I live in a different
country, its far away from you, called West Australia.
You've probably never heard of it, but we are the people
who keep sending you lot money, to keep you going.

Now OUG, put that bong down for a bit.

It's pretty awful the way you deride UOG, Yabby. His posts are even more accurate than yours own from my point of view. Realistically Australian Business was encouraged by Howard to act this way, to be confrontational, to act with stealth, to place their own interests first ,when dealing with employee's. Loyalty in workplaces is shot as a result of this philosophy and it's now every man for himself.

To illustrate the depth of self interest that Australian Business can stoop too:
the Small Business Council of Australia today objected to a $26 increase in the basic wage.

These are people who did not see an increase last time from Howard's appointed body; did not see increases of any substantial nature during 12 and half years of the Howard Govt, received the least of the tax cuts paid to re-elect the Howard Govt.

If Costello objected to Howard pork barrelling to his constituency with tax cuts all power to him. To bad he didn't have the bottle or the numbers to stop this.

Prior to that ( Keating Era ) the Business Sector was able to survive perfectly well with Wage Indexation making them supply automatic wage increases yearly to their employee's as a counter against inflatiion.

They are a disgrace, (the SBCA) and Un-Australian. When my father fought for this country he believed that being Australian meant that you were guaranteed a standard of living. This was encapsulated in the Aussie sense of a fair go!,

UOG it's seems to me that you have been too frank with your sparring partner during some other discussion and have provided ammunition to lampoon you,

Whilst I enjoy your post's Yabby can you be a bit less personal.

how ignorant you are

bongs are for idiots...[narcs..use them...the water filters out the thc]..besides i gave that up a longtime ago...but the booze seems to be affecting your braincells

yeah i heard of wa..three strikes your in jail for life...unless your a paid/to blog..mouthpiece for money...a real bourke

or the bong/basher,,wilson..iron bar tuckey/bashing the bongs..as well as those he calls booongss...seems all the scum..has drifted west

the police police the people...not the criminals...farmers got their land..via land gift...and put the first people..into gulags...ah/la,,palistein...[they got the idea from you lot]

your a pathetic/money-grubber...bloke...your unable to correct or reply..my questions..thus attack me/..for once using a plant...see how pathetic..you really are

see the scum..you defend..[ever heard of niggeria..[they got shafted by your mates as well...2000 oil..'spills...there

oils-well...when you can turn jungle...into hell

and as for them/..miners fixing it...dream on...miners...dont repair..their damages..they just up/..and go dig somewhere else..where the bourks..can get them their ritches..while their people starve

MINERS..are/allways bringing..in their own workers..fly/in...fly out...so much for making work/jobs..for the boys..yet..the leeches buy million dolar machineries...that devalues our dollar...so they..trading in us..can get yet more return

they forward trade stuff..they havnt got...so they can trade...in the futures paper they do got...when the price...shorts..falls..meaning our super covered the loss

are you ignorant of the many scams...they done over the years...is it you lot..that got the ord/river sceme...its the same nmindset...something for the big guy..nothing for the rest

the delusion..your paying your way...realise..the subsidies the farmers get..in droudt...the treason of the wheatboard..trading with sadam insane..trading with the enemy..lets not get into the sheep..and the wool sceme...the tax payers had to bailout

your a pathetic...old man gabby..its those such as you and iron/bar/bourke...and so many more...so addept at fluffing up your own nests..that approaches the vile of the miners...also not paying their way

comeback with some clever reply..or some mantra..from the past...in reply..to part of my question/mate...

im listing the stuff you dont/cant reply..

.your such a bourke...mr ironbar..grab/fest
the crabby yabby...poops his own nappy

one under god>> we need a transaxction tax..one percent
we need an export tax..two percent
we ned a super gains tax...its time them fatcats paid their way
we pay for infastructure...they get the gain...its moraly corrupt.<<

I suggested previously that in lieu of further taxation, the corporate sector funds infrastructure. This would be beneficial to the plebs not the government. Further the corporates have a vested interest in not letting cost blowouts double the initial quote as govt does every day of the week in its transactions with the private sector, we would actually save money. This is a pipe dream ofcourse; the only nations socially innovative enough to do it would perhaps be the Scandinavians.

*I suggested previously that in lieu of further taxation, the corporate sector funds infrastructure.*

Sonofgloin, in fact in many cases, they already do and have done
in the past, using their mining profits. Developing things like
iron ore mines, means building railway lines hundreds of km long,
it means building ports etc. That is why these projects cost so
many millions of $.

Even the Qld coal miners are now buying the railway from the Govt.
That gives them certainty and no doubt they will run it far more
efficiently then it has been run in the past.

The whole idea of privatisation has been that corporate finance
will own and run more infastructure, for as we have seen, most
Govts are pretty useless at running anything efficiently.

OUG, your mumbo jumbo of confusion is hardly a question. Fact is
that a great deal of the public don't pay any net taxation at all,
for last time I checked, there were around 8 million people on some
kind of social welfare payments, which costs around 110 billion $
a year. Health and education take up a good chunk of the rest.

As far as I am concerned, if WA seceded tomorrow, it would be
a great thing. Check your constitution. Minerals are owned by the
States, not by the Commonwealth.

jabby..quote...<<..Fact is/that a great deal of the public/don't pay any net taxation at all,>>>lol..how funny you are gabby

lets assume...everyone eats/buys consumables...ever hear of GST?

thats not a tax...?
lol ya retarded/deciever

how about the mug/smokers..paying 6 billion via a new overnight tax?

OR property tax..or income tax...lol on wages

or compulsory rego/licence fees/charges

or tax on ya services..on ya house

mate...at least give to the people..THEY ARE BEING TAXED TO DEATH

<<for last time I checked,..there were around 8 million people on some
kind of social welfare payments,>>>yeah...social/security..one of the few ways..taxpayers..get anything back

but what about you fasrmers..getting droudt assistans...free/water aloqwences..then selling them back...via some govt buy/back,,SCEME

<<ss..which costs around 110 billion $
a year.>>>yea...aint it great...where you think that moola comes from...GOVT LENDS IT DIRECT FROM THE FED RESERVE
at interest...[thats why we gotta pay ever more tax ya dunmmy..to pay back that govt gives away to its mates]

it even GAVE away..the fed reserve..[great privatisation that one...the bankers then stole the gold/silver[heard of deciminalisation

used to be a six-pence..was silver...but after ww2...we had such debt/war debt..the war mongers got it all,,,,well the mint halved the silver

till 66 when they took it all
then the fools..tok in their silver florin/shilling/sixpences
copntaining 6 dollars of silver,..,and got a nice new shinny...twenty/cent/ten cent/5 cent piece..

worth...less that a penny weight of copper
but even now they done away with copper/coins alltogether..turns out a one cent coin..contains 5 cents worth of copper...lol

talk aboyt grandtheft

then there is a theft via inflation...turns out a deflation rate..of any percentage..STEALS..the value..off our money

a house/priced in silver/..still costs the same...
in/WEIGHT of silver...lol

but its value in dolars/cents..it/keeps costing us more
because the bankers keep adjusting it's/value..for inflation

next to ursury...thats a huge/crime/conducted..by the elites/landed gentry..in the know..

[who at decimalisation/../turned their/pre-decimal money..into the round fifty-cent pieces..containing..STERLING_SILVER...while the fools got nickle...lol

who/got land-grants/and ever more govt largess/bailouts
over the sheeple.../the imbisiles..idiots/lunatics
[using king/g's own/words]

its despicable..the criminal activity..your defending

OUG, the key word in my point was NET, as distinct from GROSS.

Big difference. If the Govt gives you money to pay tax and you
pay less tax then they give you in money, then you are not a NET
taxpayer.

Do you know how many different kind of payments that Govt dishes
out? It is huge. Last time I checked, which is a year or two
ago now, there were something like 8 million tax payers and
8 million people receiving one kind of Govt payment or another.

Baby bonus, invalid pensions, carer pension, disability pensions,
income support supplement, the list goes on and on. I even found
a thing called a "wife pension" on the ATO website.

So whilst you personally might be a net taxpayer, millions are
not, as simply too many are sucking on the Govt teat.

Yes, farmers in NSW, QLD and Victoria are paid drought aid.
Leave WA out of it, its not coming over here. Western Australia
has Australia's most efficient farm sector.

Yes indeed Govts stopped making silver coins, because when the
price of silver rose, the public started melting them down for
their silver value, leaving some countries with an accute shortage
of coinage. Duh, if you can't see the reasoning behind why change
was needed, I can't really help you and nore can anywone else.

But we have been through all this before OUG and I'm
still convinced that the THD has done some real damage to your
thinking abilities.

oh...yabby...the silver...belonged to us all...we each should have gotten...a share...same when they privatised the commonwealth bank/...and telicom..WHERE IS OUR SHARE

instead...bankers were allowed to lease it...[like gold/which was leased to bankers]..at $33.33/per ounce..god alone knows how they are going to buy it back..if someone ever calls back their.."lifetime"...?lease

mate..many of those you claim/to be sukking the public purse...werre willing to die for you...or had their husbands/die...besides..all the cash/goes to multinational's...ie its spent into the economy...so the rich/can by yabbies/for egsample

by the by...its thc..not thd...but thats ok...if i hadnt got sent to jail...for letting a plant grow..lol..i would stil be one of them slave/wage...workers..working to survive...and wouldnt have had to learn the vile..of why/how govt can jail..its own citisenry..for self medicating/via a plant

only god can make a plant/grow...in genesis1/26..it says god..gives us every seed bearing plant...that govt..deems..a plant...to be a drug..is a legal/fiction...its like calling willow/bark;..asprin...

its that sort of insanity..that woke me up...by the by...thc..works/physiologicly..ie it expands the arteries..thats all it does...allowing more blood-flow..to the brain..

govt dont like people to think to much...so its clear why they...had to create a law/based on fear campains/and fictions..besides in 1999 the drug law..raised 65 million in revenue..from fines alone[in qld]..so again..there is the greed

what bugs me...most..is the fines/revenue..dont go direct to govt/treasury...it all goes to the fed reserve bank...to repay/govt excess...

[like the 70 billion debt/qld..govt has presently...

noting its via..such things such as the half/billion...peter/beaty-up...EACH>..gifted to his and jonny/howhards/mate...mate it just stinks

ps..the silver thing....was assisted..
by two/brothers trying to corner the silver market

its funny..you talk about nett
i talk about how gross

but the gross/the 800...million...royalties...lol...
paid to govt...not the queen...
in return for 60/billion of coal/

mate thats theft..thats gross
even with your net

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2261962.htm

According to this story OUG, Qld charges 10% royalty on coal
worth more then 100$ a tonne. So it seems that you are
confused about your figures and claims. Now according to my
calculations, 10% of 60 billion would be 6 billion. Then they
get payroll tax, stamp duty, company tax and many other taxes
on top of that.

*WHERE IS OUR SHARE*

Your share was used to pay off past Govt debt and to establish
the Future Fund, which goes part towards paying the pensions of
public servants. Costello was the first to think of them and
allow for them in his planning. Other treasurers prefer to splurge
that money now.

*so the rich/can by yabbies/for egsample*

Well that is great news. If the rich are spluring it, the poor
too can take if off them and make a living!

*if i hadnt got sent to jail*

Sheesh, no wonder we have high taxes, we had to feed you and house
you and all :)

mate we can swap stories forever
http://www.agmates.com/blog/tag/anna-bligh/page/3/
http://www.emoiz.com/tag/coal

<<SYDNEY:/Australian/miner/Resourcehouse..said Saturday..it had signed..a 60-billion-US-dollar/coal-deal..with energy-hungry China,..calling it/the country’’s..“biggest-ever export/contract”.

Resourcehouse/chairman..Clive;Palmer..said;the company had negotiated a 20-year agreement/to supply China Power=International/Development (CPI)..with 30 million tonnes..of coal a year..

Queensland/premier..Anna Bligh said the project'..would create tens of thousands of jobs,..with annual royalties/in excess of 605 million US dollars to flow to the state government from 2014>>>

so from this/i read..30 million tons..returns 605 million...
usuing your numbers..[100 per ton..then..
3o/000..000..times 100...

$3.000,/000,000...per year
'returns...$605/000,000...[annualy?]..

mate/the numbers dont add up..thus must be deceptive

WHERE IS OUR SHARE..this is just..from 0NE MINE..we should be rolling in it...yet govt..is selling our forrests..for 800/ooo,000...thats less than the royalties..OFF/..JUST ONE mine

<<..from a proposed mine/in central Queensland.

“This deal/with CPI is Australias biggest ever/..export contract,” Palmer/said..in a statement.

The latest..in a string of major deals..>>>lol<<<between China and resource-rich Australia,..the project signals/a thaw..in diplomatic tensions..surrounding the detention of Rio Tinto executive/Stern Hu and..fraught iron ore price/talks.

It also reflects/China’’s gradual turn from...>>?<<being a major coal exporter..to increasingly importing/..the fuel from countries..such as Indonesia and Australia.>>>so now..we beat/slave-wages...lol

<<Palmer,Australia’’s fifth-richest man,/said he had awarded the engineering..and/construction management contract/for the eight-billion-US-dollar thermal coal mine,..named...“China First,”>>>..lol..then/clive..eventually...us?..<<..to Metallurgical Corp of China..(MCC).>>>oops looks like nojobs...eh?

<<“MCC will manage..a syndicated group consisting/of Sino Coal International Engineering Group,China Communications Construction Company..(First Harbour)..and China Railway Group.Limited...!(CREC)/to build Australias largest coal mine..along with the required export infrastructure,”..the billionaire magnate said.

The Export-Import Bank of China/had financed a 5.6 billion US dollar loan,/Palmer said,..but emphasised the project was 100 percent Australian-owned.>>>LOL..yes by clive...

“This is Australia’’s largest single,/non-syndicated,..finance deal/and the interest from China....highlights..>>the intrest clive will pay to it...<<the strength of the project/and the benefits for Queensland..>>..ER clive/palmer...<<and Australia..lol..in developing a new world-class/coal region,”he said.

A spokesman said Palmer/was...likely to...LOL..fund the outstanding two billion/US dollars..in construction costs.>>>OUT OF HIS SHARE..ONLY CONSTRUCTION COSTS?..what aboput rehabilitation/costs

Executive director/Phil McNamara..said the “once-in-a-century project,”..which is expected to begin construction/later this year, would include open-cut/and underground mines..and a 495-kilometre..(308-mile)rail line.>>..how about the port facilities...who will own the land on which its built?

as our credit slowly/dries up
its worth seeing..just who is stil able to get it
and who isnt

noting bankers/have paid for every war...for centuries
they financed the natzies...for egsample/many of which's..firms...are still going today

so see a bigger picture/i cant be bothered sorting the dross/from the toss

from alex James:
THIRTY-TWO STATES NOW BANKRUPT:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/3a1a1e40eb19654f
___________________________

Zionism = Nazism: Is there a difference that makes a difference?, by
Roger Tucker part
II of 'Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism'

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/79782034e2c1b824
______________________________

Why the Zionist JEWS are your worst enemy by Randulf :

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/b43ddb7805d1ff63
_______________________________

Videos: Gang of Jewish Rabbis arrested for selling body parts using
Politics and
Religious Fairy Tales to cover up their crimes:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/8d97a25c9011aace
______________________________

JEWISH lady in charrge of MMS which gave BP the go ahead resigns.
(really fired):

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/99781387d6166af0
________________________________
Gordon Duff: Was America the Golden Goose that Zionists wanted to
fleece just like they
fleeced Germany?

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/eb1de1c6d62c6250
_________________________________
CBS 60 MIN. TRUE STORY OF BILDERBERG GROUP: How governments and their
intelligence agencies working with international drug dealers and
hired terrorists for/mutual benefit and profit:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/81423651bdc25b40
___________________________________
10 Shocking Things To Know About the BP Oil Spill: Goldman short
Transocean and this/owner of the exploded oil rig has made $270 million off the leak, BP..plans/to profit from disasters, etc:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thrad/c4cf604307f9ea60
_________________________________

Gaza humanitarian flotilla versus Zionist Israel's evil navy:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/45ade962fb5cb833
________________________________
The Former Director Of B'nai Brith Quebec, Bill Surkis Pleads Guilty
To Child Porn Charges:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/08eae9a3f7b74c82
______________________________
Christopher Bollyn: "Michel Friedman and the Jewish Zionist
Crimocracy":

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/cd428c6129464b6f
_______________________________

Video: Zionists genocide 100,000 Sephardic Jewish kids: How will
Zionist give
justice to Arabs if they don't even give Sephardi Jews justice:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/85e4030068c4674b
_______________________________
former ITN & BBC Middle East Correspondant Alan Hart Exposes Zionist
evil:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/55
74aa9e589fce77

the mess-iah..once said...by their works shall yiou know them
he hated the money/changers...who financed the natzies
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2010-prisonplanet-com-master-page.html

ursury especially...isiah curses media/especially...well know we the decieving media/run by the conrad/blacks..murdoch...etc