Our manufacturing industry constantly threatens governments that it is planning to move off shore to a country that have cheaper labour. The government then hands out a large subsidy to keep them here for the next 4 years (political decision, government plan on terms of election {4 years}.
The process then starts again. These companies gain both ways. Free Government subsidies and also a reduction of employee numbers.
The top-heavy management is more often the major cost problem. I include greedy shareholders, most of who live in other countries and is not interested in the future of the country, only profit.
The larger a company became and, I include government departments, the larger its administrative departments become with not necessarily any larger productive increase or a production increase that is not proportional to administrative level increases. Their executive management grant increases in salaries out of proportion to any wage increases for their workers; that is if they are given a wage increase.
These Executives receive the increases regardless of whether they are successful or failures.
To protect their territory administration will argue that the wage costs of production are too high and they then stop training or get rid of production staff.
I am not convinced that wages is the issue. Compare the cost of relocation and having train ill-educated cheap labour and or semi automating the productions and then compare the cost of well-trained experienced and knowledgeable work force. Automating some aspects of manufacturing is reasonable.
BHP is an example of an Australian company that got greedy for increased profit and went overseas to build an automated steel mill. It had exploited Australians to build it success and did little upgrading of its plant and equipment and when it got to a stage where it needed major upgrad3es decided to go overseas. It could have just as well upgraded in Australia, where Australians could be employed building value added resources.
continued

We have downgraded our quarantine system to allow the political needs of this global, etc claptrap, jeopardising our own stock, plant and fauna.
We sell rural food production to overseas countries wanting clean uncontaminated produce, then, under the level playing fields/global economy plan, we import foodstuff contaminated with heavy metals, chemicals etc. to feed our own people.
I could go on and on describing the failure of successive government to protect the interests of Australia.
It is time for a government to plan for the future of Australia and its citizens and not for the benefit of shareholders in other countries who have no interest in Australia apart from raping it and exploiting it.

Yabby>> Either companies pay 30% company tax or they don't. If they don't why doesen't the tax office haul them before the courts? Reason
being, because they do. That's why BHP coughed up 6.3 billion $
last year.<<

Well said and factual, but there is another factor that may explain why all OECD governments have been milking us dry with levies and secondary taxes on everything we do and consume.
The average Corporate tax rate in all OECD countries in the last 20 years have fallen from 45% to 30%, Australia included.

Have a look at how this downturn has effected us over the past six years.


2003-04/ 2004-05/ 2005-06/ 2006-07/ 2007-08/ 2008-09

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT Total taxation revenue
209,560- 229,131- 245,223- 261,988- 285,672- 278,002- $million

STATE GOVERNMENTS Total taxation revenue
40,410- 41,667- 44,246- 48,870- 53,130- 50,627- $million

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Total taxation revenue
7,671- 8,183- 8,726- 9,404- 10,128- 10,874- $million

TOTAL FROM COMBINED LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT Total taxation revenue
257,269- 278,577- 297,760- 319,752- 348,330- 358,878- $million

Bloody amazing less company tax but we lucky Aussies get a growth in taxes collected.

In 2008/2009 taxes on income totalled 60% of total taxation revenue. Taxes on goods and services represented 25.0% of total taxation revenue.

That means that corporate and business tax represents 15% of that years tax revenue,this figure does not undermine the fact that corporates are paying 30% tax, but some one is not paying enough when you look at the GDP growth for Australia,1975/$95 billion...1985/$177 billion...1995/$361 billion...2005/$675 billion...2009/$1 TRILLION.

Some one is making a load of money really quick. It can only be the mining segment, as the agri business has just come out of a ten year drought, and we manufacture nothing.

But in saying all this I know Rudd needed a cash cow and mining popped out, with a Rudd govt we won't get any value from it.

Sounds logical Sonofgloin except figures you present are from growth itself inc population and drawing default conclusions, such less company tax = more revenue , is just plain misleading.

Greed is the reason why manufacturing is non-existent in Australia not taxation, and moving away from being the worlds quarry wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway.

I remember a time before the Howard reign where our strategy was to become a clever country, not reliant upon mining or farming.

Rudd had to defer the ETS because of Abbott and the Greens and for all those who say they would have voted Rudd if he hadn't deferred it, imagine the massive weight of Big Money Spin we would now be experiencing over taxes and emissions trading, with Abbott and Co cheering from the sidelines.

Forget about Rudd, the integrity of people like Tony Abbott and Palmer etc willing to manipulate public opinion in their favour out of nothing more than self interest is not the pursuit of the virtuous.

And finally this countries resource fortune belongs to it's people not Mining Giants. Clive Palmer deliberately misleads when he refers to a Commonwealth cash grab as the proceeds are to be spent on us, not retain in Govt coffers.

It is now a game of chess with the Govt being forced to make an exception to it's own advertising expenditure guidelines. I accept, that this is the Govts only option. Combating BMS is in this case is in the national interest.

Because the Govt had set such high standards, the mining industry obviously thought the Govt defenceless in this area. This is the main reason they have gone so hard in advertising this issue. This time they thought they could sway opinion absolutely with their advertising dollars. The Govt has had to move out of check.

Australia's Mining Industry is not in danger from this Tax change. The Industry in Australia will not suffer 1 iota, because the resource that we are talking about is increasing in value as we speak. All bunkam aside, perhaps we should nationalise the Mining Industry

Sonofgloin, your figures don't make a lot of sense, are you even
allowing for dividend imputation? Keating was smart enough to realise
that income should only be taxed once, not twice.

*Greed is the reason why manufacturing is non-existent in Australia*

Thinker 2, consumer choice is the reason. People vote with their
wallets every day. Are you suggesting that the average Australian
is too greedy? there is actually still a large manufacturing
industry out there, they just don't make toasters and other consumer
products anymore, but make lots of mining equipment, ferries,
trucking equipment and other heavy engineering. They struggle for
labour, as many people don't want hard work jobs like welding anymore.
Go to Perth airport cargo and you'll see them flying out all sorts
of mining equipment parts, for destinations around the world.

*All bunkam aside, perhaps we should nationalise the Mining Industry*

Hehe, it were up to Govt, we would not even know that these resources
existed! I remind you that Bob Menzies used to ban iron ore exports,
as it was thought that Australia had little or none. You would not
know if there was gas or oil out there, unless somebody spends
25 million$ a hole to find out.

Given that your Govt cannot even distribute pink batts efficiently,
how on earth do you think they would suddenly become efficient miners?

You are dreaming, Thinker 2, floating on the clouds

thinker 2>> Sounds logical Sonofgloin except figures you present are from growth itself inc population and drawing default conclusions, such less company tax = more revenue , is just plain misleading.<<

There is certainly merit in what you say. Consider the view I offer as macro rather than micro. The point is that the amount of tax revenue taken from us by the states has grown by 25% in six years, and the tax revenue from the feds has grown by 33% in six years, and they have blown it, and had to borrow. The mining tax is a way out for Rudd the spend thrift.

Just to keep some perspective on the spoils we argue over.

"In 2009, 3 percent of Australia GDP was contributed to by agricultural sector and 26.4 percent came from industrial sector (mining accounting for 7 percent of that). Service sector contributed 70.6 percent of Australia's GDP."

Until I found these figures I had the misapprehension that mining contributed a load more than 7% to the GDP. It does make me recalculate what the industry threats to moth ball new projects means in real terms, given I over valued their contribution.