Examinator, Lynsay Tanner knows as little about business as you do,
and that is the problem with this Govt. Running trade unions and
running large mining companies are very different.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RSPT-rent-tax-resources-Wayne-Swan-Lindsay-Tanner-pd20100518-5KA3F?OpenDocument&src=sph

Yes, the Govt is running scared, dreaming up one excuse an hour
to justify their super tax, for they never expected the outrage.
Miners were an easy target. No so!

If less mining is what they wanted, why did Martin Ferguson go around
threatening oil companies, that if they did not develop their
resources, they could lose their licenses? Just months ago?

If less economic activity is what they wanted, why did they throw
around 40$ billion $ of taxpayers borrowed money?

Pull the other one.

Don't blame miners if house prices increase in Sydney. The Govt
has only itself to blame on that one and that is why the RBA has
increased interest rates.

Thinker 2

"What I am saying TM is that Australia's credit rating wont change as a result of the mining tax changes. Australia's credit rating might even improve with a strengthening of our tax base. "

Moodys warn credit rating may drop.
MINING companies' profits could be slashed by a third under the Rudd government's proposed resource super-profits tax, forcing credit rating downgrades.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/tax-to-cut-miners-profits-by-a-third-moodys/story-e6frg8zx-1225868383597

Now we have the Chinese threatening import tax on Australian iron ore. Not real smart throwing a hissy fit over foreign investors making money on our resources when them buying them is keeping our economy ticking along. Some other murmurs of copy cate rent taxes will possibly push China to adopt such policy to ensure it doesn't not become a global trend.

So we end with higher interest rates and higher commodity prices.

I mean really, oh dear we have to slow down the mining sector? The government has being throwing stimulus money around like confetti, banks lending to any takers, highest private debt in the world and it is the miners over heating the economy?

Anways global finaces are in a mess so playing with fire imo. It may work but why take such a risk when we have no real need to. We give our resources up a litle too cheaply but then we have also taken cheaper resources for our financial advantages, expecially human, from other nations. We probably have taken more than we have given truth be told.

At 6 AM when no one was listening, A.B.C Radio Monica Attard was aired interviewing a spokesman from the O.E.C.D. In 3 loaded questions in a row she tried to get this official to say something bad about the R.R.Tax proposal.

He said he thought it ( the R.R.Tax ) was the correct thing to do for Australia, especially if spent on Infrastructure etc.

Monica said "but wont it effect investment in mining"?. He said absolutely not, because it is demand that drives investment in mining not tax changes. He then went on to say that Australia was extremely well placed re China and was wise to consider a strong continuing relationship with China's demand for minerals.

Again Monica insisted "but what about falling Australian Mining share prices" he said share prices are falling world over at this time , because of the European situation and the new mining tax proposition is not the reason mining shares are falling in Australia.

This outlines the interview but the thrust was that it's demand not tax that rules the mining industry.

He also mentioned the spike in profits that mining companies have had over the last 10 yrs or more that has not been reflected in the royalty system, and that allowing this to continue was probably a mistake.

I think that about covers your last post TheMissus.

I still think that Big Money Spin( the subject of my original post ) is a danger to all.

If we allow the onslaught we are about to see, on our TV's and in our Newspapers,
affect our judgement as they talk this up and talk this down adinfinitum, you know your super is going down, your housing price will go up etc; "all because of a tax change?", try and keep it in perspective. Thats all I'm saying TM, it's not end of the world as we know it.

Best thing is, with the new tax that "if they make more money so do we ! , isn't that good?.

*This outlines the interview but the thrust was that it's demand not tax that rules the mining industry.*

Ah, but that depends from whose perspective, thinker 2.

For an Australian mining company, no matter what the demand is,
if the risk of investing all that capital does not leave a
reasonable profit, why bother mining? You can stick it in the
bank, risk free, at 6-7%, not even bother getting out of bed.

So net return on investment risked, drives Australian mining
companies. For BHP for instance, the most profitable thing
to mine is oil, in places like the Gulf of Mexico etc. Far
more profitable then hard rock mining in Australia.

So why should they risk 22 billion $ on expanding their
South Australian operations, if there is better money to be
made on that return elsewhere? Too bad for South Australia.

Demand is driven by China and yes, the Chinese will move in
and mine those minerals in Australia. How much tax do you
think they will pay you?

I think Yabby , that China will pay what they needs to pay to meet it's demand in the end.

The BHP example your using ( I suspect ) might be easiest transition case you could find in isolation, when the truth is, that for the most part Australia would still be an attractive place for Multi-national Miners despite the Tax changes.

I have a problem enjoying commentary from Magnates who banter about the Investment they made in a country in the past , as being motivated by their desire to act for the benefit of that country. Profits have nothing to do with it ? . I ask myself.

It's possible that mining investment could be lost because of the Mining Tax Yabby, but not likely. As supply and demand and market forces march on.

*It's possible that mining investment could be lost because of the Mining Tax Yabby, but not likely.*

Its definate, Thinker 2, all you need to learn is to use a calculator.
How public mining companies operate, is very public and highly
scrutinised by the investment community.

*that China will pay what they needs to pay to meet it's demand in the end.*

China won't need to pay anything, under the new rules. All they need
is good accountants. You the taxpayer, under the present suggested
scheme, will even have to refund 40% of their costs!

Profits will be made in China. All very simple really.

*Profits have nothing to do with it ? *

Of course profits have something to do with it. That does not mean
that a magnate cannot care about the future of his country. Palmer
bought his iron ore assets for a song, 20 or so years ago, when
iron ore was worth nothing. Twiggy Forrest was the first bloke to
be able to put a project together, that was bankable and obtain the
finance. Either man never needs to work again. But I'm sure that
they would like to see Australia prosper, as would most Australians.

The fact is that highly qualified accountants are pointing out, that
some miners will pay up to 75% tax, as the super tax is on top of
all other taxes. When you have to hand over 75% of your efforts
thinker 2, most people can't be bothered to get out of bed,
quite frankly. I certainly would not. For what?