As to your second point, Herbert, I do indeed agree that "Land is surely an asset of the Australian people". However, in the case of those parcels of land (sites) that are not mineral assets we already have an efficient way of capturing the land rent of these - municipal rates and state land taxes on site values. We assess a site value on every rateable property in Australia and do it better than anywhere else in the world. So, no, I think we might pass on your suggestion that my "property development mates" pay a 'before outgoings royalty' on their businesses.

Ken Henry, in fact, had the 'second leg' pretty right. Instead of the crass array of state land taxes with their thresholds, exemptions and multiple rates, he recommended there should be a comprehensive land tax, possibly replacing payroll taxes and stamp duties.

But I know the political likelihood of that admirable target, if people can't even see through the crass self-interested arguments of Australia's miners.

But stranger things can happen. I was pleasantly incredulous when the president of the Property Council of Australia suggested a comprehensive land tax a couple of days before Rudd and Swan released their slant on Ken Henry's review. If they can see that building owners and managers would benefit from a land-based revenue system, maybe Australians can eventually be educated to see it's far better than taxing incomes.

Bryan. Thank you for your responses to my points.

You say: "However, in the case of those parcels of land (sites) that are not mineral assets we already have an efficient way of capturing the land rent of these - municipal rates and state land taxes on site values."

But, as I understand things, rates are generally a small proportion of the rateable land value, and in any case are designed to be a payment for services provided by the council, not a payment to the Australian people as "rent". And as to Land Tax, in NSW "Land tax is calculated on the combined value of all the taxable land you own above the land tax threshold. The rate of tax is $100 plus 1.6 per cent of the land value between the threshold and the premium rate threshold and 2 per cent thereafter." Land tax is not "rent" either, but lets let that pass.

So, given the thresholds, it appears that the combination of rates and land tax is unlikely to be more than 2% of the rateable value, whereas the WA royalty is 7.5% of revenue. How would you feel if 7.5% of rental income were passed to the Australian people, in addition to rates, land tax and corporate tax?

And you are proposing, if I understand you correctly, that 50% of the profits from mining should be passed to the Australian people. By your logic, shouldn't fifty percent of the property profits also be passed to the Australian people?

There are numerous "public" assets that we need to consider. These include forests, resources, water resources, land, fisheries, TV and radio broadcasting licenses, broadband spectrum, etc etc.

Why shouldn't we apply one sensibly structured payment regime for all of these to give the Australian people a "fairer" return? At the same rates?

My hunch is that if we did a careful comparative analysis of the "rents" paid to the Australian people for the use of these public assets, we will find that the mining industry already is paying substantially more than other industries.

One of the problems of this whole discussion is that the 'debate', such as it is, is being undertaken with emotional slogans, and precious few facts that can be compared and understood

Council rates and land taxes do only collect a miserably small part of our land rent, Herbert. We publicly collect about $40 billion of our $325+ billion in land rent and should aim at bringing it up to par with a comprehensive land tax as recommended by Ken Henry.

Although 10% of everyone's site value (take a look at your rates notice) could replace all taxation, this would not be necessary if we also started to get the fair rent from licensing the other natural resources you mention, but like our mining rent (which IMO should be struck @ 50% of EBIT) they are currently hopelessly inadequate. But now that the chips are down, I notice that Alan Kohler, Robert Gottliebsen and the Daily Reckoning crowd start to clot with business against the best interests of the people. By all means reduce taxation, but grabbing the rent for public revenue can never be a bad thing.

You say "Land tax in not rent either" but it is. Technically, taxes on land are resource rents not taxes. Taxes are arbitrary and may be passed on in prices. Rents cannot be, no matter what the mining industry is claiming.

BTW, Herbert, you could add to the list of other public resource assets you mention, aircraft corridors.

OK, so I'm dreaming. But I'm very happy to have Ken Henry and his crew starting to see the light. We'll need their insights to get through the next 10 years - or else.

I agree with your analysis Bryan, and also agree that the naming of the tax seems very clumsy. In the jumble of words that have been used in the name the phrase "super profits" stands out, which seems a very judgemental statement when something which better described "a tax on unearned income" would probably have been much better understood by the voters, and also harder to defend by the mining companies and their well resourced lobbyists. Those people who understand business pricing and costs would not think that a 6% return on investment was the threshold beyond which a business incurs "super profits". OK, it's not that simple, but that's my point. Once you have to resort to complex business metrics which most voters don't have sufficient business experience to understand I think you've lost the argument.

Anyway, back to your original point - given that all Australians own the resources that the miners are extracting (and profiting from) it doesn't seem unreasonable that a share of those profits are returned to us. It works fine for the Norwegians and North Sea Oil, why shouldn't it work for Australians in the middle of a mining boom?

You guys make some compelling points. But what I don't get is why you treat one industry exploiting one form of public asset differently from all the other industries doing the same.

Seriously, why not a standard, well-designed tax regime that is "fair" in the sense that it is the same for all industries with a public asset component, and such that there is a defensible logic.

I don't see, Bryan, why a 50% super tax (do you mean it to apply to EBITDA, and would you charge corporate tax afterwards?) should apply to mining projects, but not to all the other public asset classes. How do you justify that logically?