Well said Troy. You explain the situation clearly - in fact, better than either the government or the mining companies. In fact, the lack of clarity about what is being talked about is appalling.

And especially concerning is the statement made that the Australian people deserve a 'Fairer Share' of the profits made by mining companies. No discussion about what a fair share might be. No recognition of the fact that mining companies pay royalties, in WA soon to be 7.5% of REVENUE, which is a very high rate in fact.

No recognition that the activities of a mining company generate public benefits way beyond the simple company tax and royalties paid. For example, much of the revenue gained through mineral sales is applied to covering operating costs. What are operating costs? They are wages and salaries (generating payroll tax and income tax paid by the employees), services (generating GST, company tax, payroll tax from the service companies, and income tax from their employees), supplies (again generating GST, company tax, payroll tax from the companies, and income tax from their employees).

And it doesn't end there. The fact that those employees have jobs means that they buy houses and cars, groceries, furniture, wine and beer and countless other things that drive the economy. They pay rates which are expended on town infrastructure. They travel which keeps airlines going and so on.

Prevent even one new project going ahead, as the Super Tax surely will, and all those jobs, taxes, royalties etc just won't be generated.

Another point where the discussion is confused is the proposition that some commodities generally produce lower profits than others (phosphate, aluminium etc) and therefore should not be subjected to the same high rates of super tax that might apply to the commodities that are seen as more highly profitable. This is a nonsense. Sometimes even these 'boring' commodities face market circumstances whereby very high prices are generated, with correspondingly high profits. Why shouldn't those 'super' profits be subject to the RSPT as well?

Also, why should the mining industry be singled out? Yes, they are using a public asset (the minerals in the ground) for which they are paying a fee (royalties). But many other industries use public assets as well. For example, television companies use TV licenses which are a public asset. Why shouldn't they be subject to a 'super' tax to give the Australian people a 'fairer' share

Having said all that, a well designed RSPT could arguably be applied. However, the design would have to be very different than that currently proposed. The RSPT should be applied only to new projects - don't change the rules for past investment. Second, the RSPT should be an additional tax that is applied AFTER normal company tax is applied to EBITDA. If the AFTER CORPORATE tax NPAT exceeds a defined percentage of EBITDA (say 25%) then arguably a super tax can be justified to apply, at a 40% rate, to the NPAT above that 25% NPAT margin.

But, this tax should be applied to ALL companies, not just mining companies. One way or another, most companies exploit public assets. They should pay too if their returns are very high.

"Prevent even one new project going ahead, as the Super Tax surely will, and all those jobs, taxes, royalties etc just won't be generated."

Rubbish.
The resource still exists. It will eventually be mined generating all those jobs, taxes, royalties AND massive profits to the miners. Probably even more as the prices will have increased.

The greed of these fat cats and the absolute hide they have to cry poor while swimming in their lucre like scrooge mcduck never ceases to amaze and sicken me.

Lets talk sense here, we dig up over tens times what canada does. Please remember this stuff is in the ground, it's not like a manufactoring plant that can be moved offshore. The whorld Iron ores reserves will run out in about 60 years it is estimated by current know reserves and growth. there will be no super Tax then lets get max benifit for aussie now.

Troy, firstly your profit and loss statements are really much too simplistic, we both know that taxes and their compilation are much more complcated than your examples. Nevertheless, to prove your point that you as an investor will certainly be disadvantaged by the application of this so called super tax you have presented this simplistic comparison with a Canadian government tax. My advice is, if you are not happy, then sell your mining shares and invest in property.
Mining in Australia since the great depression days when gold miners greatly assisted the recovery, tax wise, has led a charmed life, most emphatically so compared with the rest of the tax paying population. Its well past the time the miners paid there fair share.
Mining like farming is a way of life, when subsidies were removed from farmers they also screamed they would go broke, never happened.
Similarly the miners, they also will not go broke, neither will mining investors.
As the Treasurer states: the minerals in the ground belong to all the people of Australia, they the general public are the landlords and if the mining tenants cannot or won't pay the charged rent, so be it, the minerals in the ground are not perishable and if not mined this year will still be there to be profitably mined in the coming years. They can only be sold once!