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?