Point of information: What are excess profits? How are they determined? The article doesn't say.

Excess profits are those above the level of normal profits where normal profits are those that are earned in a competitive market. There can clearly be debate about the quantification of what in this context is normal and hence what is excess but no debate that there are excess profits.

Gavin and Colin

Let's put it in perspective. Last year BHP had revenues of $62 billion and a net profit of $7.2 billion. Of this $7.2 billion, about $4 billion was re-invested in mining and $3 billion went to shareholders as dividends. Sixty percent of the dividends went to Australians, mostly Super Funds.

Of $62 billion in revenue, $59 billion is spent on mining operations and development and government taxes. In other words, $59 billion is pumped directly into the economy and $2 billion goes to retirement savings as Superfund Income and 1 billion goes to overseas investors. This is why it is called the goose that lays the golden egg. Why would you want to kill it.

I really know about the theory of excess profits. I am asking what is the percentage above which profits are considered excess. How has the government determined this percentage? What is the percentage, and how has it been determined? Number, please.

The mining companies are gouging up our earth that is full of the minerals that are ours and taking them off elsewhere for industries. In this way they create wealth for other countries and fforeign investors. Some Australian investors do OK by this arrangement but whaat's so wrong about redistributing some of that wealth that is generated to other Aussies. We've been hung out to dry by these bloody leeches long enough, havent we ? And dont tell me these multi-nationals will suddenly go broke giving us all a fair go.

socratease

While it has to be acknowledged that there is more than a little hot-air rhetoric doing the rounds on this tax, this is hardly a balanced view of the topic.

Which is a pity, because it is set to be a major factor in the upcoming election. If we continue to conduct the debate at this level of stratospheric emotion, no-one will benefit.

The authors do a good job of sticking a pin into the ballooning chicken-littlery of the miners, but then fall at the first fence in their response (my entry for mixed-metaphor-of-the-month).

"Let’s put this in some sort of perspective. Mining companies are granted privileged and exclusive access to resources that are owned by the Australian people. That is the source of their excess profits"

Oh, puhleeeze.

"Privileged and exclusive access to resources?"

The "privilege" is that you allow them unlimited license to spend as much as they like digging holes.

The "exclusive access" is also to the dirt they dig up before they find anything.

The "resources that are owned by the Australian people" have, let me gently suggest, a vastly different value when they are above ground and shipped off to China, than when they remain below ground, untouched by those horrid greedy miners.

Clearly, the authors subscribe to the view that while investment by the private sector should be encouraged, decisions as to the value of that investment should be decided retrospectively, and arbitrarily, by the government.

That is not particularly conducive to a private sector opening their wallets and rushing off to do their bit for the Australian economy, now is it?

But this is the real stunner.

>>There can clearly be debate about the quantification of what in this context is normal and hence what is excess but no debate that there are excess profits.<<

So... there's "no debate" that they're excess.

But at the same time, there's no definition of what is excess.

George Orwell described this as "doublethink".

The ability to hold two conflicting views as simultaneously viable.

As I understand it "super profit" in the context of this tax is profit above the average government bond yield. Quoted as being "around 6%" currently.

According to Wattle's figures of $7.2b profit last year BHP made a bit over 11% profit. In comparison rental returns in Australia last year were 4.26%. http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Rental-Yields

I would like to make a comment with respect to the statement "In 2006-07 mineral production totalled $100 billion, of which the Australian community, which owns the resources, received little more than 7 per cent in tax revenue". In my personal opinion, I think this is a little misleading as it does not detail where the rest of the $100 billion goes and the benefit to ordinary Australians that the mining industry brings in terms of jobs and economic activity. Also need to consider the tax receipts from employees of mining companies, who work so hard to get these resources out of the ground unlike the bankers who are making billions by shuffling electronic paper.

The "privilege" is that you allow them unlimited license to spend as much as they like digging holes.”

Well I don't see it that way Pericles because it’s not their money they’re spending. The privileged mining executives are spending shareholders’ money to dig holes. Furthermore, WA Premier Colin Barnett budgeted $80 million for last year’s ‘exploration’ programme. If the results are poor, then that’s tough for the shareholders and the taxpayer but certainly it’s not tough for the mining barons.

BHP’s Martin Klopper’s total remuneration for 2009 was $13.9 million. Rio Tinto’s Tom Albanese, UK 3,797,007 pounds; Dick Evans US $10,094,952 and Sam Walsh AUD $5,594,394.

"I think that CEO compensation is out of control, totally out of control," said Paul Anderson, when in 2002 he retired early from the top job at BHP Billiton with an $18 million pay-out.

The SMH reported that ‘in 1990, the bosses of our 100 largest companies were paid 18 times more than the average full-time worker. Twenty years on, the ratio is closer to 70 to one.’

The mining industry is born of dead miners and the industry has always had contempt for the precautionary principle and besides they believe climate change is crap.

Who is paying for the contaminated dust (spread far and wide by prevailing winds) the leaks, spills and environmental carnage caused by the mining industry? Where are the prosecutions? Who pays for the millions of native animals slaughtered with impunity, by small and large mining operations each year in Australia (yes millions not thousands!)

Who is paying to remediate the derelict mine sites in Australia - some 11,411 documented sites in WA alone and rising, with piles of abandoned tailings and waste rock and many sites leaking heavy metals, arsenic, mercury etc? Contaminants from the Webbs Consols mine in NSW are now 12 kilometres downstream of operations. Who is paying for that?

Ethical or unethical investments? Your choice. A carbon emissions’ tax or a super profits’ tax? Your choice, your destiny!

This is a strange article. Good name for a tax 'though, sounds like it ought to be in the Hall of Justice.
Firstly, this article seems to be about using fiscal policy to create social welfare. That is, tax should not be to about creating or allowing wealth creation, but about redistributing it more 'fairly'. While that has always been a part of our taxation system this takes it to a whole new level. This type of thing so rarely works.
Secondly, the statement about the jobs created by mining completely ignores the multiplier effect the mining industry has in the market and the employment market in particular.
Thirdly, the 'Super Profits Tax' is really a tax on a) success, and b) the China/India boom. Without either, resources prices would be a fraction of what they are today.
Fourthly, as the authors point out - they have no philosophical problem with the concept being expanded to other industries - banking in particular. This goes back to it being a penalty on success. Since when has a nation been built by penalising its most successful industries?
Lastly, let's face it. This is really a tax on WA and Qld. This is not going to burden the rust-belt states of the SE coast of this great country. Again, if that's what is happening, let's at least be honest and call a spade a spade. They want to slow growth in these two states and transfer that wealth to the SE states. This is WELFARE for NSW and VIC (and to a lesser extent I guess Tas.)

The authors have clearly confused their figures. 7 billion$
is just royalties. Miners pay company tax too, so the tax
figure contributed by them is more like 22 billion.

The point is that this new tax is not to replace company tax,
but on top of it, which for a company like BHP means an effective
tax rate of 57%.

When Hawke introduced the petroleum tax, at least he showed
integrity and applied it to future investments, not retrospectively.
Not this lot. Its just a grab for money to try and plug holes
in their loose wallets.

Swan cannot answer, if the tax will be applied to phosophorus,
lime and other fertiliser ingredients, thus pushing up the price
of fertilisers and eventually food. Even bluemetal is up for
grabs. We don't know, yet he is already including the figures in
his budget. Clearly he never thought it through and was in a rush
to improve the budget figures.

Dickie, I certainly hope that they pay Marius Kloppers extremely
well. Its taken him 5 years of virtually single handed campaigning
to ensure that iron ore customers pay market prices for their
products. The benefits to BHP should be well over 1 billion $,
of which taxpayers will as usual, cash in hundreds of millions.

Sorry, but a gold watch just won't do these days, to hire that
kind of talent.

Perhaps only a couple of ageing baby boomers could be so out of touch to write "Mining companies are granted privileged and exclusive access to resources that are owned by the Australian people. That is the source of their excess profits." (1) Anyone can apply and be granted a mining tenure, just do the paperwork. No privileged right of entry required. (2) not everyone can find minerals on a mining tenure, let alone mine them and sell them, its very risky. If you think it's easy, go and do it yourself, make "excess" profits and donate them all to charity (if thats what you think money is for) (3) the minerals are not owned by the "Australian people". If you think that, show me your proof of ownership certificate. If any entity "owns" the minerals, it's the State Governments, certainly not the Commonwealth, (4) If a single dollar profit above a risk-free return of the long-term bond rate of circa 6% is deemed "excess" (and therfore attracts a tax rate = company tax rate + 40%) then I'd expect the authors to be advocating every enterprise pay such a tax (maybe the Prime Ministers wife?). (5) When the Commonwealth gets taxes it wastes them on roof insultation debacles (and kills people in doing so) and invents Builder Early Retirement (BER) funds. Is it a coincidence that the $9billion to be taken from shareholders, super funds and workers equals the free money directed to certain select building companies "granted privileged and exclusive" school rorts?

Canada has an economy similar to Australia, where due to the large land mass, the mining industry (especially recently) has boomed and rescued them from the GFC.

Their reaction to Australia's mining super tax is jubilation, and they are actively courting Rio and BHP, to develop the resources in their country.

In economics a normal return on an investment is commensurate with risk. Treasury bonds have sovereign guarantee and give the lowest return say 6%. Company bonds have a higher risk and give about 10-11% but would return nothing if the company failed.

Given the variability of mining the returns are anything from a total loss (which happens more frequently than most people realize) to the huge profits that Rudd is focusing on.

To add an impost on mines doing well, but not allow any reprieve for mines doing badly, or allow deductions for other related costs is pure larceny.

I have a problem with the Federal Government’s description of mining resources as “owned by the Australian people”. Gavin and Colin also express this view.

As I understand it, resources are not and never have been a Federal resource, they are State owned.

Can anyone clarify this please?

has boomed and rescued them from the GFC.
Shadow Minister,
Yes we'd have Gross Financial Collapse (GFC) if it weren't for the wholesale flogging off of our natural resources. We can probably continue this practise until it no longer concerns us but some of us DO THINK of our children's future. There really is no moral excuse for not slowing down this exploitation. the one & only reason this demand is so high because of so much frivolous industry which supplies to frivolous customers. frivolous i.e. unnecessary commodities are what causes so much pollution & fosters never ending greed. Just look at the many different models of cars. It's insane ! Look at all other similar commodities. Is there really any justification for so much pampering in choice of choice ? Go to any supermarket & look how many items are literally the same. All this is causing too much industry & speculation. Yes we do need an economy but for crying out loud does it have to be at the cost of everything else ? Is using up natural recourses & manufacturing really the only option to get tax money ? Why do we need so much tax money ? How about cutting back on money paid for no value ?

Let's get a few facts straight. Crown land in offshore areas, the Northern Territory and the ACT belongs to the Commonwealth Government, and they are entitled to extract a resources tax if they wish. However Crown land in the States belongs to the people of that State, not to the Commonwealth, and that is why the States collect royalties on their mining activities. This attempt by Rudd to enact a resource tax is just another Commonwealth attempt to take over State powers, without the consent of the people.

Next, let us consider the prudence of imposing the tax. If the tax were to be levied on NEW mining projects, that would be fair enough, as new investors could then decide if the project was still viable. But to impose it retrospectively on existing projects, thus changing the viability of a project to which investors have already committed funds, is fraught with danger. Which foreign investors are likely to commit to new projects under these circumstances?

Of course the reason existing projects are being targeted is that Rudd is desperate for money.

Thank heavens for the Senate!

The whole thing reminds me of 1984 when David Longe played silly buggers with the US over nuclear powered ships, and Wall Street decided it would be a good time to call in New Zealand's foreign debt.

The result was that NZ housing interest rates went to 24%.

If Rudd is not careful, the same thing could happen to him.

There’s nothing like the smell of filthy lucre to induce hysteria in OLO’s right-wingers but the mining industry (and its lapdogs) have a long history of campaigning against threats to its privileged position.

In the event of a protracted bun fight over the super tax, the Native Titles Act (and indigenous communities)may just sabotage the mining industry. Seen any affluent bush communities lately who’ve leased their lands to the grim reapers?

Who remembers the hysterical outburst from the gold miners when during 1997, the Western Australian government introduced for the first time a royalty on gold producers, thus removing gold as the sole mineral exempted from royalties in the State. Tut tut!

Bernard Keane over at Crikey writes: ‘Watch for the predictions of job losses, reduced dividends and abandoned projects. Watch for the dodgy modelling from economic consultancies designed to back up the wild claims. But also watch for what they tell investors, because they tell the public one thing about how disastrous things will be and investors and the ASX quite another.’

Rudd's proposal is intended for the common good. Then in direct contrast, we have self-interested industries and adoring fan, John Howard, eco-vandal and industry sycophant. Who recalls Howard's buddy, big shot Len Buckeridge and his application for a brickworks on Commonwealth airport land in WA?

The WA State government disallowed Buckeridge's application on environmental grounds (including concerns over the number of existing brickworks)but in stepped little Johnny to override State law. So what's new here and was Howard's Commonwealth intervention in the public's interest? Huh?

As a consequence, the Swan Valley grape growing region of WA now has five brickworks in close proximity to the valley, all spewing out hydrogen fluoride, hydrochloric acid , oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and only the Gods know what else. Anyone for a vino cocktail?

Norway already imposes a 50% resource tax. This clever country will have saved more than $12 billion by 2020 to upskill all its workforce when the oil runs out and Australia's plundering mining industry better believe it!

You can't be serious , Protagoras, Saturday, 15 May 2010 6:22:18 PM

Norway where a glass of Beer costs $10 and a wikki pop with anything remotely decent cost's 800 to 1200 Bucks ! Why would they complain about a 40% R/tax the poor buggers are defeated , thats why they all nick off to Latvia on weekends where it's buy one beer get three free .

We Aussies really are Mugs , it's you and I that get to pay the tax , how can you buy a car and not pay the resource Tax , what about your shed your dreaming about , is the Quarrie Owner who supplies the material for your Slab called Father Xmas ? Get with the program Mate !

I wonder if Protagoras knows which sector is the biggest employer of Indigenous Australians? Take a wild guess! Those who want to keep the natives on welfare "down on the reservation" are backing this tax grab as hard as they can. Would want them natives to be independent of Government!

Garum Marsala

The most current international survey of 50 cities on the cost of living lists Oslo as the 14th most expensive city.

http://www.mercer.us/summary.htm?idContent=1311145#top_50

Furthermore, Norway has a small population, a high income and has managed to deal with the current financial crisis very well. Yet we in Australia must endure the rants of 'populate or perish' nonsense! The fact remains that it is the disciplined and common sense approach to economic management that has ensured smooth sailing for the Norwegian economy.

The most current annual report by the United Nations has found that Norway has the highest standard of living for its citizens and came in ahead of Australia.

The UN looked at life expectancy, literacy rates, school enrolment and country economies to make their decision. Norway has set a worthy example in economic management that Australia should well consider emulating.

Do try to keep up.

“I wonder if Protagoras knows which sector is the biggest employer of Indigenous Australians? Take a wild guess! Those who want to keep the natives on welfare "down on the reservation" are backing this tax grab as hard as they can. Would want them natives to be independent of Government!”

Not only pretty sick comments from Siltstone but they're also racist and false. Indigenous Australians are employed in many different industries and the bulk of the massive welfare payments in this nation go to white Australians. With a population of 22 million including 500,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - go figure!

http://www.aboriginalworkersunion.com.au/page37.html

The only reason indigenous people were employed in the mining industry is because the army of slimy, profiteering bastards in mining were dragged kicking and screaming into submission. The industry’s boast of indigenous employment in mining is as insincere as their duplicitous ‘sustainability’ reports but when has this industry ever let the truth get in the way of self-interest?

Thanks Protagoras, Saturday, 15 May 2010 11:22:02 PM , you know I have been a bit suspicious for a while that Rudd might have been burgling the poor old Aboriginals to pay my pension .

Protagoras,

Norway has vast oil reserves, hydro electric power, and a population of 4m. Holding them as a model to emulate is as facile as using Saudi Arabia.

Other than your colourful invective you have yet to provide any economically sound argument as to why mining in Aus should be the highest taxed in the world.

Perhaps a little less flowery emotion against the tall poppies and a smidgen of reason.

its clear bhp has money comming out of its ears..By Rebecca Keenan

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- BHP Billiton Ltd.,..the world’s largest mining company,..may resume buying back shares as rising metal prices increase its available cash,..UBS AG said.

The company may announce a buy back as soon as Feb. 10,/..when Melbourne-based BHP releases its first-half profit,..UBS analysts led by Glyn Lawcock..said in a report dated yesterday.

“In financial year 2011 we expect free cash flow of $17 billion and excess cash of $7 billion”..and free cash flow of $4 billion in the year ending June 30, 2010, ..awcock said...“Since suspending its buyback program in December 2007,..BHP has only returned cash to shareholders via the ordinary dividend route.”

so what is the 'dividend'...
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=BHP

says its $1.46 cents per share..[share price=$66.39 cents in us dollars]..meaning..only a few cents per dollar return/effectivly..less than cash in a bank

butt..i hear you say..the share price has gone up..[so what says i..see our retirment DEPENDS on return...not share price...bhp shareprice is a delusion..

WHY?..because buggy whips went bust..how do we know those bhp shares will still have any value tomorrow?

study the chart..bhp debt[for egsample..over 16 billion DEBT..and then whats the total debt equity..NOT AVAIL:ABLE..

bhp like all the other multinationals not paying their way..is plasying games..ALL THE CREAM..goes to bonus..in the end the shareholder get nothing but the debt...

and the fixup costs..to fill in the great big holes..they leave in the ground and our COMPUSLORY pension SCEMES..well let govt pay for that with yet another big/new/tax

its sad that the super/we MUST PAY..has enritched the few..sad that bloggers defend the indefensable...sad public servants dont do their duty..and media dont report..aLL THE FACTS

one bad investment..its all gone..
except for the bonus..they gave themselves..on the way to the poor house

Dickie dear, I find it rather amusing that you find Norwegians
such good managers, given that they make their "filthy lucre"
from mining the ocean, and killing whales and other sea life.

Sadly some of that "filthy lucre" was lost, when their Govt
invested parts of it with Lehman Bros and similar!

Indeed Peter Costello established a future fund, to invest for
the future. But Kevie and Co decided that "cash splashes" and
similar jokes were more important. As Kerry Packer pointed out,
Govts don't tend to spend it so wisely, that we should give them
any extra. Waste is the name of the game in Canberra.

But comparing Australia to Norway is like comparing apples and
oranges for many reasons. For a start, climate. You'll find
that people in northern countries work a bit more then in the
south. For the weather in Norway is not really idea for surfing
in Byron Bay, lazing at the beach in general or holding a
corroboree. So people are indoors more and when they are,
then tend to become more industrious. The net result is less
leeches on the tax take.

Next mining. Oil mining and on land rock mining are quite
different. It takes more then to stick a straw in the North
sea to extra megadollars, with hard rock mining,as you would
know. So it takes more investment and risk, financed by
private enterprise, unlike North Sea oil.

I partly agree but am concerned the tax is going too far. Rudd has performed very poorly in introducing this tax by making it a war against the miner and also a war against foreign investors. makes Australia look poor for investors.

I am in Far North Queensland and the economy is bad. Rudd is trying to get people to see there are two speed economies. One speed is Cairns which is woeful. The Australian dollar is far too high he says so tourism suffers as a result so places like Cairns are going under. If he trashes the value of the Australian dollar all the tourists are supposed to start coming. ha ha.

So he runs the risk of increassing the interest rates because higher risks associated with investing here and we end up the same as last century. Maybe not as high but same problem. Sometimes trying to fixing problems government create them.

The bottom line though is the government getting all this extra money does not mean Australians will get to share it. I find that hard to believe lol. Just transfering the money from states to Canberra really. How scary.

I am curious as to how the Treasury boffins came up with the idea that a mere 6 per cent return on investment represents a "Super profit", given that my understanding is that a nominal 10% ROI is not an unreasonable low-end-of-the-spectrum return on a speculative or a moderate risk-bearing investment. Certainly there is a case for an increased royalty type payment in exchange for the resources but the very low base proposed for this so-called 'super profit' tax is flawed and not unexpected from the Labor side of politics.

Can the red/green/getup/labour cheer squad "please explain" to me why they are not going for an "across the board" increase in personal income tax rates for all high income earners, CEOs, regardless of which industry they earned their "excess profits" in? Or a wealth tax, etc?

Oh yeah, the PM, cabinet, etc, might have to pay more & we can't have that. Plus they needed cash fast to cover their "spend like a drunken sailor" habit, so lets go after an allegedly, politically easy target.

That & its an opportunity to play wedge politics plus lots of dog whistling.

Let's put aside the personal attacks made against the character of some of the critics of the new tax. Instead, let's look at the claim that the resources industry isn't paying its own way. The authors state that the industry paid just 7% of its $100 billion income as tax in 2006-2007. But they also state that corporate profits in 2005 amounted to 27% of income. In other words, 73% of corporate income was paid out as wages and to suppliers and service providers. Where would Australia be today without that re-investment of commodity sales income having been invested back into the national economy?
Analysing the numbers a little more also shows that the $7 billion paid as tax was in fact paid out of the industry's $27 billion profit, a tax rate of 26%, not 7% as the authors want you to believe.
All up, this is a very shallow analysis of the new tax and the criticisms levelled against it.

Today in WA, I read a letter to the editor of a regional paper where the author claims that over the last five years, $225 billion has been repatriated to foreign investors in the mining industry in WA.

Assuming some accuracy to the claim, one could imagine with that sort of money, we could have the best health care in the world. With Australia’s increasing GHG emissions, comes the ambient and tropospheric discharge of non-GHG hazardous emissions as well, coupled with an escalating morbidity incidence among the Australian population.

Several Australian studies on the impacts of NO2, Particulate Matter and SO2 have shown strong and consistent associations between children's hospital admissions and industrial air pollutants in Australia but there remains a paucity of research on the other couple of hundred noxious chemicals discharged from the mining industry.

The mutagenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the products of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and have been detected on suspended particulate matter (PM), an inconvenient truth for a mining industry which is self-regulated and self-reporting:

1. A single mining operation at Boddington WA discharges 6.2 million kgs of Particulate Matter to the environment every year

2. At Cadia Valley in Orange, one operation emits 8.2 million kgs of PM

3. The Century Mine Burketown, 9.7 million kgs of PM

4. One operation at Telfer in WA, 10 million kgs of PM

5. One bauxite operation at Weipa, 8.8 million kgs PM

Alcoa’s Smelter at Pt Henry emits 16 million kgs of CO annually

Alcoa’s operation at Anglesea Victoria emits 33 million kgs of SO2 annually.

And we must take them at their word, however, the mining industry is not obliged to pay for the environmental carnage they cause or the escalating health costs of industrial pollution.

*Assuming some accuracy to the claim, *

Ah, there is your first trip up point, Dickie. Is it true?

That's around 45 billion a year.

Next point, what if it is? Who risked their money to do the
prospecting, mine development and mining? If its so profitable,
why don't more Aussies risk their money? Why do they prefer to
lose 20 billion a year on gambling on the pokies and other gambling
risks?

Anyone is free to buy mining shares with their hard earned savings.

It just takes a few clicks of the mouse these days.

But of course OLO has its share of parasites, who want others
to risk their money, but want the profits paid to them. Ha!

Minerals belong to the State, not to the Commonwealth. This is
just another attempt by the slippery Kev and his mates, to try
and gain control of State finances. Last week it was the GST
that he wanted. The list goes on

Demands for a world tribunal with the power to punish climate 'crimes' were presented to the United Nations. The Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal emerged as a key proposal of the summit - the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth - held in Bolivia last month and attended by more than 15,000 people.

The tribunal would have the legal capacity to prevent, prosecute, and punish states, companies and individuals who are causing environmental contamination and climate change.

“This court is completely feasible. Not only that, it is urgent and indispensable," said Miguel D'Escoto, former president of the UN General Assembly.

“This is a court at the same level as the international court of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide," said the Belgian sociologist, François Houtart, arguing that polluting and causing climate change were also crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile the resource rich state of WA is on rampage and megalomaniac, Colin Barnett rejoices. May 8: Another mass rally was conducted - this time outside the gates of Cockburn Cement in Munster and the hunreds of ordinary but polluted Mums and Dads replete with kids and family pets, were irate.

250 of WA’s citizens await a class action, pending in the state of Pennsylvania US, against Alcoa and its operations in WA with allegations of chronic illnesses and even mortality while Alcoa’s CEO, Klaus Kleinfeld received a compensation package valued at $11.2 million in 2009.

Oh there you are Yabby. Why do you address me as "Dickie dear?" Juvenile spite? And your brutalised livestock industry must be overjoyed with the Barnett Government in WA who has just reduced Western Australia’s Animal Welfare Inspectors from six to one. This is to cover an area of 2,525,500 square kilometres - 33% of Australia’s land mass while almost daily we read of your industry’s atrocious cruelty to farm animals – the details too gruesome to record here.

Signing this petition may mitigate Australia's reputation as a sadistic and greedy nation. An outraged international community is again objecting to Australia's disgraceful governance, as you will note here:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/reinstate-animal-welfare-inspectors

*this time outside the gates of Cockburn Cement in Munster and the hunreds of ordinary but polluted Mums and Dads replete with kids and family pets, were irate.*

Sheesh, Cockburn Cement have been there for a long time now. What
are these people doing, buying and building houses close to a
cement factory, if they have a problem with it? AFAIK, Cockburn
are breaking no rules.

*Why do you address me as "Dickie dear?" Juvenile spite?*

Nope, good old common sense. Now we know that some women frequently
change their hair colour, or the colour of their fingernails,
or whatever else they think they need, to become "a new woman".

Whatever, but for a place like OLO, I think its highly confusing.
If we all did it, we'd be spending our time trying to remember who
is who now. Given that "Dickie" was your nick for years, that is
the character that I relate to when you post. So that is who I respond
to.

"Whatever, but for a place like OLO, I think its highly confusing.
If we all did it, we'd be spending our time trying to remember who
is who now. Given that "Dickie" was your nick for years, that is
the character that I relate to when you post. So that is who I respond
to."

And since when have paid up subscribers on OLO had to play by your rules Yabby? If you don't like my pseudonymn, take your objections to Graham Young though I doubt he'll take kindly to fascists telling him how to run his forum.

So the short answer is that there are NO, loony, left wing, humanities academics volunteering to pay higher rates of income tax on their 6 figure salaries, or offering to do away with negative gearing on their investment properties, or offering up a wealth tax to be collected from all "super" high income earners?

Just have a go at the mining industry, or complain about the particulate matter that is protecting us from global warming.

It would be a good idea to apply the super profits tax on the Rudd house hold.

I heard that they were worth about $100m. Either she has been very thrifty with the house keeping or she has made a profit a little higher than 6%.

Why would mining companies bother investing tens of millions of dollars in exploration, production and jobs, over years and in some cases decades, on the chance that they may make a 6 percent return. Would it not be easier just to raise capital and then deposit it at the bank for a risk free rate of return? So it would be good to see some real examples from Mr Swan for both small and large companies on how this proposed tax will impact the mining sector and the economy at large, so that we can all make an informed decision on its merits.