Graham,

".....However I do have a problem with taxing the poor and the needy to subsidise the Greens illusions about renewables. Let the renewables stand on their own feet, as you apparently think the rest of the country should. The Greens want to tell the rest of us what we should support - that is not progress, that is regress."

In 2013 the world spent $550 billion on fossil fuel subsidies (four times that subsidising renewables) to keep the price below market rates and, therefore, discourage alternative measures in fuel efficiency.

What would happen if fossil fuel was required to "stand on its own feet"?

Graham,

Good government does not invest in transport infrastructure for mines, except where the infrastructure is to be used by the community. Govt's job is to invest in PUBLIC infrastructure such as ports, electricity grids, public roads, public transport, schools and hospitals, NOT haul lines for mining companies

The Pilbara iron ore railways and ports were funded by the mining companies. Coal is another mineral extraction industry no different to iron ore but you say, on top of the subsidies it already receives, that Government should invest in its transport infrastructure. This is where governments come unstuck. They are neither qualified to make the call or entitled to invest huge taxpayer dollars in it, regardless of whether they (or you) think they'll make a profit.

The Newman Govt is only doing this because they are idealistically desperate for it to proceed and Adani corporation can't raise the capital, private investment being wary of coal, much of which will soon be stranded assets.

Another example that comes to mind is the WA govt constructing a road in the SW for BHP's $200m Beenup mineral sands mine that failed and was abandoned after 2 years, leaving a 'freeway to nowhere'.

Re Howard's superannuation handouts - yes they benefit the retired and elderly (I'm one of those). Low tax super contributions are a good thing for poor and middle income people and the superannuation co-contribution was great for the 'poor'; I used it myself, but now it's been axed by Abbott and Hockey.

I've no problem with this up to a middle income level, but the lion's share of these benefits (about 8 billion a year) go to the richest 10% - millionaires. They could stash away 150,000 a year (now 50,000) at 15% tax, while still working and pay no tax on withdrawal. Is that fair?

These mega-super concessions, negative gearing on established homes (OK that was Keating) and the partial tax exemptions on speculation profits are the tax concessions for the rich that I'm talking about and neither Libs or Labs have been willing to redress them.

Wouldn't it be great if lefty, greenie people tried arguing with the truth.

Wouldn't it be even better if they would change their tune once their errors were pointed out to them.

Claiming that nor charging ROAD TAX on fuel used off road, in mining & farming is a subsidy is totally dishonest, & they know it. They should they have been told often enough, but like the famous dishonest hockey stick, they keep trotting out their lies, obviously hoping a few will be fooled.

I guess it must be hard admitting your whole belief system is based on lies, & has only an illogical emotional response to support it.

Hi Roses, there are no subsidies to mining in Australia, above and beyond things like accelerated depreciation and R&D allowances available to every business. The Productivity Commission calculation is that they come to $300m per annum (from memory). Other countries might subsidise fossil fuels, but I think you'll find that the subsidies to renewable energy dwarf those subsidies. And that's without taking into account that fossil fuels run the world and renewable energy run a postage stamp proportion of it.

I don't understand your point about railways. So if the state builds a railway to take mostly rural produce, that is OK, but if they build a railway to take coal it isn't? Somehow one is a "common good" but the other isn't? Same if they build a road which takes commercial vehicles? Sounds like a meaningless distinction.

It's also meaningless to compare with banks. Banks don't have the same sort of sunk costs that states do. They can lend anywhere in the globe, but the Queensland government has only got Queensland. And it will get money directly from the minerals that the banks won't get access to. So the maths aren't necessarily the same.

Graham,
I really recommend that you read this report on state govt ASSISTANCE to the mining sector. (OK let's not get into semantics about what constitutes direct subsidies; the Federal tax related allowances you mentioned can also be included under the term 'financial assistance' (FA), so let's stick with that term)

FA from state governments to industry is mainly in the form of rail, road and port infrastructure but includes other expenditure, most of which is primary or entirely for infrastructure used by the mining companies.
file:///C:/Users/XC8173/Downloads/Mining%20the%20age%20of%20entitlement%20(1).pdf

I quote (and this is but one of many gems you'll find in the report):
"Another way to consider the size of assistance to the minerals and fossil fuel industries is in comparison with the royalties that they pay to state governments. In 2013-14 the Queensland government is budgeting to spend $1,489 million on industry assistance. This is almost 60 per cent of the $2,604 they are anticipating receiving in royalties......
"The vast bulk of Queensland’s assistance to the minerals and fossil fuel industry relates to the transport of coal, by rail and at coal ports. Our analysis finds that $4.6 billion dollars was spent in the (6 year) period of analysis on wholly-devoted, new capital expenditure for coal transport – mainly railways and ports.

On top of this, Newman intends to spend a whole lot more of coal haulage rail for Adani's Gallilee mines.

Let us not forget that the coal companies are more than 50% foreign owned; for Adani and Glencore that figure would be over 80%. Is it fair that state governments give taxpayer funds to foreign investors?

(cont.)

I'd also like to know what you think about Poirot's post from an article in the Australian:

"A FINAL act of the Newman government before calling the Queensland state election was ­approval for a controversial coalmine development by a company that had donated $650,000 to the Liberal National Party." ?

I haven't read the article or researched the issue (refuse to pay to read the Australian which I consider to be too liberally laced with propaganda from Murdoch lackeys). But if it is true, then I reckon it's another heinous example of how corporations manipulate our state governments.