*Spending money on your own requirements e.g. railways for iron ore transport etc is not the same thing as spending money on essential services infrastructure etc Yabby.*

Hang on, whoah there! That very infrastructure created the wealth
to let BHP alone, pay 6.3 billion$ in taxes last year. Not
to mention taxes from staff, contracters, suppliers and their
suppliers. Without it Thinker 2, you would be dressed in banana
leaves, in a banana republic. How can you say its less important?

Building that very infrastructure, created thousands upon thousands
of well paid jobs, generated taxes etc.

* It's good that jobs were created but when iron ore is gone,*

So what timeframe are you talking here, Thinker 2? After you die,
your children die or your grandchildren die? Or their children die?
Do you know much about WA's iron ore deposits?

How long are you trying to predict into the future here? 100 years?
200 years? Can you even predict 10 years ahead? I bet you cannot.

*I still fail to see how a tax on Super profits means 50 % or more tax across the entire cost of tax for Miners*

Quite easy. 40% superprofits is only one tax paid. There is still
company tax to pay as well, which is another 30%. We won't even
mention payroll and other taxes on top of that.

You seem to be under the illusion that the 40% superprofits tax
will replace comapany tax. Not so, both have to be paid under the
new scheme.

*My question now is "can they or can't they afford it". *

That is your perspective. But you need to have somebody voluntarily
risk their savings on these ventures. Are you prepared to risk your
lifesavings on a mining venture, where the Govt plans to take up
to 75% of any profits?

Or would you rather put it in the bank, safe, paying much less
tax?

Yabby;
>>The average wage today in real terms is higher then it was 25 years
ago.<<

Cost of Living 1975 Aust
Average Cost of new house $39,300.
Average Income per year $10,400.
Average Monthly Rent $160.00
Cost of a liter of petrol .44 cents
Average cost new car $3,750.00

Cost of Living 2010 Aust
Average Cost of new house $550,000
Average Income per year $65,400.
Average Monthly Rent $1400.
Cost of a liter of petrol $1.34 cents
Average cost new car $35,800.

In 1975 I could just about buy 3 cars with the average wage.
In 2010 I could nearly buy two.
In 1975 I could pay a house off in less than 4 years.
In 2010 it will take me nine.

Yabby as I said do not consider the plethora of appliances and creature comforts we enjoy today as a benchmark to our standard of living. You can have the latest technology and still be on the street tomorrow if you do not own the floor you stand on, and less Aussies own the floor they stand on now, than we did in 1975. Ain’t better now, excluding the technology. So in real terms we are not better off Household savings in Aust declined from a peak of 18% of household gross disposable income in 1975 to a trough of 2% in 2009. Yabby I could go onto the utility charges and municipal/ state taxes in 1975 vs 2010, but it is more of the same in comparative outcome, we were better off back then

Sonofgloin, indeed we have a housing bubble, which affects those
wanting to live closer to the CBD. But the actual cost of building
a house is still quite reasonable. I can buy a house for half
your figures, if its further from the CBD. Next once again,
today consumers have options when it comes to things like a car.
There are plenty available for half your quoted figures.

High land values closer to the CBD are a result of Govt policy,
Govt is free to change them, reduce migration etc.

Yet so many other things are cheaper and better, due to imports
and low tariffs. If they were made here, they would cost a fortune.
So we are indeed better off in real terms.

I think you'd find that if you stuck the average family back into
a 3 by 1 fibro, at 12 or 13 squares, they would soon be pissed off
too.

Yes, people save less, but shut down the pokies and alot would
save more. People spend because they can, not because they have
to. Big difference

can they or can't they afford it".

Even if they can why bother with the risk for giving the big end of town a tax cut?

Henry said the mining industry has been in deep recession. So we are taxing an industry that is slowing down to give to boom industries?

I actually see this as raping regional Australian (AGAIN) to give money to the big cities. Iam sorry but I am damn sick of this. Perhaps Australia should split up.

Makes no sense.

Yabby these miners were not here to pay the tax for the benefit of Australia and were actually mainly here for the profits. But are you advocating a tax cut for miners at this time? as the Tony Abbot has said

I read your posts with interest and you make your points well, but then your synopsis goes to far by making the assumption that the new tax regime means 75% tax for miners.

Ken Henry also said in affect, that during the 09 downturn (GFC), that had other businesses reacted the way Mining Corps did in Australia unemployment would have gone from 4.6 % to over 19 % . Henry deeply criticised Mining Companies for their behaviour at that time, and added they were not in fact the backbone of recovery at all.

Says something about job security in the mining industry I think as well Yabby, and their less than benevolent attitude to their own employee's is not all that Aussie, is it ?.

Sonofgloin understands how economics effect real people I think.

And I agree TheMissus the regional situation and the environment are major concern for this country, but I don't think that splitting up the federation, is an option, or makes a lot of sense either

*Yabby these miners were not here to pay the tax for the benefit of Australia and were actually mainly here for the profits.*

Thinker 2, these miners are corporations like other corporations,
made up of hundreds of thousands of people who own shares in them,
because they saved a bit, rather then blow it at the pokies.

Those people care about Australia as much as you do. In fact, if
you have money in a super fund, which nearly all Australians do,
then you do own a share of these miners and the profits which
they generate.

Corporations are simply large entities, where many individuals can
pool their money, to invest in large projects. Something like
40% of Australians own shares directly. Its your choice, blow
it at the pokies or save a few bob for a rainy day.

All those grey nomads travelling around the country, they are people
who saved all their lives, most of them own shares, after having sold
their businesses, or cashed in their super, or being sent regular
cheques from their super fund.

*but then your synopsis goes to far by making the assumption that the new tax regime means 75% tax for miners.*

Yes indeed, a top accountant who understands the new tax and
mining, calculated that some miners could be paying up to 75%,
depending on their situation. Once again, this 40% tax is on top
of company tax. They have to pay both, meaning that many will pay
way over 50%, which people like Peter Costello and myself, think
is a ripp off.