The mining industry is like any business where you have the ‘operator’ (the miners) and the owners (shareholders) and they both ‘co-exist’ with the common goal of making profits.

Now I have no problem in the owners wanting a piece of the profits, after all, they are shareholders and, they also share the ‘risks’ as well as the ‘profits’.

What the government is proposing is for all Australians to become ‘shareholders’, without being exposed to the ‘risks’, and it is this arrangement that I see as wrong.

By all means let the people of Australia share in the profits, but they must also share in the risks.

Now as an alternative, if the government (people of Australia) were to fund ‘all mining exploration costs’, then, I see no reason why we, the people of Australia should not enjoy a larger share of the profits by way of a ‘super tax’ and in fact, the tax could be even higher but, only if the risk of mining is removed from the mining industry, otherwise it’s a typical case of ‘if you find something, we want our share’, but only if you find something.

rehctub,
That is sober, logical thinking. Throw in a flat tax rate & presto, you'll leave the hangers on, bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you brigade stone-cold without an argument.

Only one problem Rehctub, If you have government do the prospecting, or even control it, that means public servants tasked to do something useful. Mate you've got to be kidding.

They would spend a kings ransome, find nothing, & send us broke in the process.

Just think pink bats, or school halls.

Since this has become an issue (that is since Rudd needed money) I have asked people what percentage of our gross domestic product do they believe mining contributes to. With the exception of one well informed Aussie they all said between 20% and 30%.

Mining contributed 8% to our GDP in 2009, and Rudd has singled this sector out to pay for his mistakes. Too gutless to levy banking profits he takes the easy target, smaller but easier. The banks are gouging people as miners gouge the earth, I know which revenue stream comes closest to the descriptive "blood money", and morally their profits should be further taxed.

*The banks are gouging people as miners gouge the earth,*

The reason that banks make so much money, Sonofgloin, is because
people and businesses borrow so much. So there is a huge amount
invested in bank capital.

If you check out the figures, you will see that bank net profits
are around 1% of total assets. In other words, if banks charged
1% less interest on loans, or paid lenders 1% more, they would
make no profit at all.

Do you really think that a 1% margin is unreasonable?

Mining matters, not because of its 8% of GDP, but because of the
flow on effects from that, in terms of export $ brought in, to
increase the size of the economic cake. The miner spends his money,
buys bread, newspapers, clothes, etc, so if you follow the money
trail, you can multiply the 8% by around 4-5 times, to see the
real effect on the economy.

For mine, the assets that are being sold belong to US. Not the billionaires that want to get them for bottom dollar (as shown by their threat to go where it is slightly more costly to dig, the 3rd World).

Ok, bugger off then... We'll sit on our assets until you come, hat in hand, begging to be allowed to dig them up... Then we'll squeeze top dollar out of them.

Those involved in the mining industry have been making massive salaries and/or wages for long enough that they should be capable of surviving a slump. If they haven't put money aside, that is their problem, not Australia's.

As to the flow on effect, so be it... The fact is that seaside shacks that have sold for millions of dollars, never were sustainable. Idiots will inevitably lose out, but fools and their money are easily parted (as the saying goes).

Perhaps once there is a slump in mining, we can stop importing tradespeople from overseas, instead employing Australian Tradesman at "reasonable rates"...

Personally, I have absolutely NO pity for those who seek to continue their existence at my expense, and that of the unions. The Right-wing is unlikely to appreciate this aspect of what they are doing, but collective bargaining will be essential when there are more jobs than qualified workers.

But that is the way the world is, we have borrowed more per capita than ever before, which is not sustainable. Working class people have debts that will be transmitted to their children. This is not the first time it has happened. Houses in certain parts of Melbourne were sold at prices in the 1890's that were only reached again in the late 1990's.

I agree rehctub with your balanced view except the type of ownership that the Australian Taxpayer, (through it's elected Govt) possesses in the case of our minerals, is different too owning a share in a exploration lease for mining.

Risk I would have thought was intrinsic to that business and it's participant's, and should be factored in to their business plans regardless. The taxpayer risks losing 8 % of its GDP temporarily if we shop for new lessee's to mine our minerals. If the existing ones all left at once.

As home owners would object to the terms and conditions of a lease with tenants being set and determined by those tenants, the taxpayer should feel short changed if the relationship with with Mining Giants is one of the tail wagging the dog.

The RSPT is the first test of this , and I'm hoping the tail isn't wagging the dog.

Custard, it's only 12 years ago that the miners were all loosing a fortune.

Oversupply had allowed Japan to screw the prices down so low than small miners were taken over, before they went to the wall, & many large ones just survived. They need reserves to get through those periods.

You might be surprised how much of those mining giants are owned in large part, by the super funds, INCLUDING the union owned super funds.

When one looks at the history of british industry, particularly the moter industry, & others like it, one can see that unionist stupidity killed those industries, & put themselves out of work, bigtime. They are still out of work.

The politics of envy do more harm to workers, than they do management. Don't be a pig headed fool.

This is at the heart of the issue, in my view.

>>Ok, bugger off then... We'll sit on our assets until you come, hat in hand, begging to be allowed to dig them up... Then we'll squeeze top dollar out of them.<<

Although perhaps not in quite the same way that Custard intended.

First of all, it should be recognized that mining companies need Australia far less than Australia needs mining companies.

After all, the stuff that they fail to dig up, for whatever reason, is not going to go anywhere, is it? It will still be there when a) the government relents, and restores the previous levels of profitability, or b) world prices reach a point that restores the previous levels of profitability.

The only people who will suffer in the meantime are those folk who rely upon the mining industry for their livelihood - there will, for a time, be less for them to do, and hence less wages, hence less momentum in the economy.

So I take most of the mining industry's complaints with a pinch of salt. They will simply move their investment money elsewhere to get a better return for a while, and come back when either a) or b) above comes to pass.

Similarly, for the government it is also pretty much a win/win. By raising the profitability threshhold, they will constrict supply, which will keep world commodity prices high. And the underlying mineral assets stay exactly where they are, to be monetized at a later date.

In the meantime, the additional hardship (increased unemployment, damage to our trade balance etc.) can all be blamed on those nasty, greedy miners.

Perfect.

Australia doesn't need mining companies AT ALL in that regard...

Mining Companies give bugger all back to the Community, and most of the money goes offshore.

Let them pull out of their leases, pass an Act under which every lease which is not worked for 12 months reverts to the Crown, and your mother's got a brother called Robert.

They will not dare to risk losing their leases, the shareholders would crucify them, case closed.

Would it be fair to say also Rehctub that your point your making when you say:

"What the government is proposing is for all Australians to become ‘shareholders’, without being exposed to the ‘risks’, and it is this arrangement you see as wrong".

is that the australian taxpayer should become a shareholder in the mining risk ? .
The minerals themselves already belong to the taxpayer.

I don't think , that is what the Govt is proposing, or really comparable with it

I mean, it stands to reason, that if s.51(xx) of the Constitution is not limited by s.51(xxxv) (see NSW v Cth (Work Choices Case)), despite the previous authority (Schmidt v A-G (Cth), etc.) then s.51(xx) is not subject to s.51(xxxi) either (the placetum under discussion in Schmidt itself). The alternative is that it is supported under the bounties and export placetum (s.51(iii) or the Taxation power (s.51(ii)) or a combination thereof.

I mean, the radical decision in the WorkChoices Case is just that, a radical departure from decades of Constitutional Jurisprudence, so why would the specific authority under s.52(ii) or s.52(xx) be limited by another power? That is PRECISELY the effect of the WorkChoices Case, so let's see the Mining Companies reap what they've sown.

Therefore, their should be NO PROBLEM with such an Act, whereby abandoned leases revert to the Crown. It is not retrospective (so it is valid in terms of Taxation & Acquisition of Property), so it will either stop the current mining companies pulling out despite their threats, or allow other companies with better sense in.

Either way, it puts the miners over a barrel at Mardi Gras

Oops Custard, I think you will find that onshore minerals actually
belong to the States, not the Federal Govt.

That is exactly why royalties are paid to the States. This is
just another grab by this Govt for more power and control over
the States.

The first people who should actually benefit from royalties,
are the regions where they are mined. You city slickers
don't need it all for yourselves.

Doesn't matter, the Federal Gov't has the right to make laws with respect to EXPORTS (s.51(iii)), TAXATION (s.51(ii)) and COMPANIES (s.51(xx). On top of which, with all the State Governments being Labor, they could refer it to the Commonwealth as it is (s.51(xxxvii)). It will come under one or more of these heads of power. I'd bank on the Export Power myself, very little of the material mined here is used here, so it would be VERY effective, in conjunction with s.51(xx).

The simple fact is, there are already laws on the books limiting the time one can hold a lease without working it, they just need to be altered, thus it would not even be a law with regard to anything, but a change in an existing Act (or Acts) and whatever Parliaments can make, they can alter is a truism, no?

I would have thought that being the sovereign owner of a resource, is a risk free occupation.

If the resource remains in the ground there is zero risk to the owner.

Of course you could be attacked by a foreign power because it's there and they need it. You would need very adequate defence capability long term, if your going to leave your resources un-mined I feel.

Anyway the resources grow in importance and value over time, if left in the vault.
The financial risk to the resource owner is zero, or better.

As our representatives, the Govt simply wishes to implement a Tax payable mainly by Multinational Mining Corporations. Not become share holders in their risk or ventures.

Losses can come from bad decision making from Business operators, as is the case with BP in the Gulf.
Should taxpayers refund BP it's investment's for having such bad luck?. I don't think so.

Pink batts etc for that matter here Hasbeen, was caused by every sheister around crawling out of the woodwork to grab taxpayers money. The Govt underestimated just how many of these sheisters there were with a business name, and just how low they would go.

The Govt has some culpability, but is the sheister installers that are ultimately responsible for the death and mayhem.

The media has covered little of the prosecutions of some of these people that were prepared to jeopardise the lives and safety of others and peoples property to turn a quick buck. Shameless acts of exploitation of customers , against both the Govt and the end user/recipient.

There was nothing wrong with the idea of insulating everyones home better in the first place.
The Govt is guilty of naivety when conceiving this idea, but not guilty of installing the batts.

You people are incredible. Total incompetence is totally OK, if it's your ideological lot that are being incompetent.

I wonder if you would still feel the same way if it had been your kid that died, because they would not listen to warnings?

On second thoughts, we had better leave that stuff in the ground. At least until we get a government that just may spend those royaltise sensibly.

*On top of which, with all the State Governments being Labor*

Hehe, I always did think we were like a foreign nation here. Sorry
sunshine, but WA is a liberal-national Govt, with part of the
royalties coming back to the regions. Its the very reason that
Labor was kicked out, country people had had a gutfull

I'll tell you something. If you lot tried to stop iron ore exports
from WA, you would not have a buckleys chance. The population would
revolt against you and tell you to get stuffed, secede if
required. WA would thrive without you.

What would you do? Send your troops to shoot us?

Not likely.

Yabby>>If you check out the figures, you will see that bank net profits are around 1% of total assets.
Do you really think that a 1% margin is unreasonable?<<

A bit of creative accounting there Yabby re the total profit percentage expressed against assets.
Poor banks why do they bother to open their doors, or is it a charitable thing, a public service from the banks to us.
For a business that does not make money it is amazing that they can find fools to buy their shares on the ASX at about fifty dollars a single share. Fools and their money are soon parted.
Poor, poor poor poor poor poor poor………………………………….banks.

Still, get past s.51(ii),(iii)&(xx) used in combination...

My personal problem with mining is fly-in, fly-out, NOTHING stays in the area with the resource, they spend nothing, they buy nothing (and that is just the workers).

The Mining Companies are not local except in very unusual circumstances, the bulk of the money is offshore and the way these things are structured as it is now, bugger all stays in Australia anyway...

The High Court has a LONG history of taking centralization of power, ie. handing power to the Federal Government, and I think this is one of those occasions that will happen.

By the way, given they have agreed on the Commonwealth taking over Health, how do you think the States would rather pay for it? Losing their GST or locking in the miners and letting them pay for it?

That is the choice Canberra will give them, and it is no choice at all

*or is it a charitable thing, a public service from the banks to us.*

Sonofgloin, in fact quite a bit of what banks do, is indeed a public
service. I can assure you that paying staff, rent etc, to hand
over Joe Blogg's dole cheque in notes every fornight, is not a
profitable business!

*A bit of creative accounting there Yabby*

No creative accounting there Sonofgloin, but perhaps just facts that
you overlooked. Sure banking is profitable, as it should be.
People don't deposit their money in banks going broke, they want
safety of their savings.

The fact is however, that banks need tier 1 capital to operate and
guess who our banks turned to, during the GFC, to top up their
tier 1 capital? Shareholders of course, were asked to cough up
tens of billions. Should those shareholders not have a return on
their investments?

I also remind you that when banks get it really wrong, like in the
UK just recently, shareholders lost the lot and the UK Govt took
over many banks.

What return on your savings do you think you should receive, to
risk your life savings? You are free to buy bank shares, like
everyone else, if you think that they earn too much.

So my whole claim is really this. That your claim was wrong and
that given the huge amounts of money involved and the risk,
bank profits are not unreasonable. But what few Aussies actually
understand is that the largest shareholders of banks are in fact
Super Funds, which they too have a share in. So you too Sonofgloin,
would benefit from bank profits, even if you are not aware of it.

Yabby>>I'll tell you something. If you lot tried to stop iron ore exports from WA, you would not have a buckleys chance. The population would revolt against you and tell you to get stuffed, secede if
required. WA would thrive without you.
What would you do? Send your troops to shoot us?<<

Yabby that’s the spirit of Eureka, secede.
I certainly understand your sentiments given the dog’s breakfast management of Labor governments in the other states, not to mention Rudd. There is a growing idiocy in the other states, I can not put my finger on it but it has to do with consecutively voting in incompetent Labor governments. It defies logic, logic is defied.

Yabby, some numbers for you.

Australian Bankers Association 2009>> The profit performance of our major banks is equivalent to earning $1.40 profit return on $100 in assets. If banks earn $6.40 worth of income from the $100 worth of assets, they pay out $5 in expenses before delivering the $1.40 in profit.<<

VS

David Uren, Economics correspondent From: The Australian September 24, 2009
>>AUSTRALIA'S major banks were enjoying record profit margins when they cried poor and lifted mortgage interest rates independently of the Reserve Bank.
Official figures show the profit margin for the major banks was 54.8 per cent in the March quarter, resulting in $1 profit for every $2 in interest and fee income they charged.
The banks' profit margin during the quarter was more than double the long-term average return of 26.9 per cent.

I know which statement is credible, I know which statement reflects reality. The banks are a conduit, of themselves they produce nothing.

And a last example of how poor the banks are.
From: The Daily Telegraph May 06, 2010
>>Westpac has been voted the worst bank for customer satisfaction on the same day it announced bumper profits / AAP Source: AAP
Westpac voted worst bank in survey
Commonwealth Bank comes in second
Almost half of Aussies are crippled by debt
WESTPAC customers have emerged as the unhappiest in Australia as the bank announced a whopping net cash profit of nearly $3 billion in its half yearly results.<<

Cash profit of 3 billion in six months, the spin doctors will have to find more fixed costs to bring their profit down

http://www.westpac.com.au/docs/pdf/aw/ic/fy09-fullyearprofit-asx.pdf

Sonofgloin, the above URl takes you to Westpac's full year's profit
last year, in detail. If you check it out, you will find that
my claim is correct.

*My personal problem with mining is fly-in, fly-out*

Custard, your personal problem simply does not matter, unless you
are a miner, having to make a decision in consultation with your
family. As it happens, many wives insist on living in a capital
city. If more money was spent in some of these regional areas,
perhaps more would live there. That is the point really. These
areas have been screwed of resources, to send you city slickers money.
It is time that royalties flow back to these regions, to improve
services. Just because they don't have your number of votes, does
not mean that they should be treated like dirt.

*the bulk of the money is offshore and the way these things are structured as it is now, bugger all stays in Australia anyway*

Sheesh Custard, you are not the brightest poster on OLO, you
really arn't. I remind you that BHP, the world's largest miner,
is 60% Australian owned, with over a half a million direct
Australian shareholders. Super funds, in which you no doubt have
an interest, take another huge chunk. So money indeed stays here.

*The High Court has a LONG history of taking centralization of power*

The High Court interprets the law, they do not make the law. At no
time in our history, have States handed over their mineral rights
to the Commonwealth. Suck on your lemon, but that is the reality.

*By the way, given they have agreed on the Commonwealth taking over Health,*

Err not Western Australia old son, Barnett told them to get stuffed.
You really are out of touch with everyday politics, Custard.

Perhaps all this will be far easier solved by getting rid of
the present band of Canberra comedians. People have had a gutful.

Custard>>For mine, the assets that are being sold belong to US

This is why we get paid roalties.

>>As to the flow on effect, so be it

Now you're treading on thin ice. Be carfull what you wish for.

>>My personal problem with mining is fly-in, fly-out
Mining companies cause major problems in towns, but, the government can't now shift the goal posts because of this.

Pericles
After all, the stuff that they fail to dig up, for whatever reason, is not going to go anywhere, is it?

There can be a billion$ of minerals that cost 2 billion to mine.

>>The only people who will suffer in the meantime are those folk who rely upon the mining industry for their livelihood

Which is most likely 85% of us, indirectly!

thinker 2,
We receive royalties for the minerals. What I say is that if we want additional profits, we must share the risk. Remember, we are talking 40%. That's huge!

>>Should taxpayers refund BP it's investment's for having such bad luck?
Yes! If tax payers want an additional 40% of the 'super profits', with zero risk investment.

Finally, Imagine a gambler backing his favourite horse at say 3-1.

He lays out $100, it wins and he goes to collect his winnings, $300. How good is that!

Now imagine this scenario;
Of the winnings he gets $6.00 at first, that’s 6% return on investment and, of the remaining $294 he pays 117.60 in tax, (40% super tax) then walks away with the balance being $174.60.

His new winnings become $182.40, instead of the initial $300.

Do you think, he may think, the risk is to high and he may re-think his bet?

Now multiply the dollars by billions and you may see where the miners are comming from.

Mining is about investment v risk v return.

most businesses PAY for the inputs to their business .. raw materials etc .. and pay tax based on their profits

raw materials are often 20-30% of the costs of a product .. the business often processes these, markets the product then pays typically 30% tax on the profits .. excess of revenue over costs

royalties are often lumped together and called a 'tax' ... that's where the 50 - 60% figures come from ..

MINING is really NO different to any other manufacturer - they should be paying for the resource / raw materials they use as a COST OF PRODUCTION .. then paying the same TAX as any other business

Yabby >>the above URl takes you to Westpac's full year's profit
last year, in detail. If you check it out, you will find that
my claim is correct.<<

You must be kidding Yabby, the report runs to 150 pages. I did not challenge your statement that banks return one percent of assets, after some creative accounting, given they own everything.

Once again, some numbers to consider from the Reserve Bank Of Australia, Statistical Tables:

Bank transaction account fees per Australian Household.
1997 $431 per household
2008 $1792 per household
That is a 315% increase in 11 years. 28.5% per year!

Credit Card Fees per Australian Household.
1997 $135 per household
2008 $332 per household
That is a 146% increase in 11 years. 13% per year!

Total bank Fees for all Accounts and Loans per Australian Household.
1997 $1160 per household
2008 $4845 per household
That is a 317% increase in 11 years. 29% per year!

My transactions with the banks did not treble in the past ten years, but they gouged three times the fees from me. Yabby why are you an apologist for the banks.

Sonofgloin, I'm not an apologist for banks, but trying to get you
to see the big picture of banking, rather then little details that
you bog your mind down with and seem to get upset about.

When the market changed, banking changed and the way banks made
profits changed. Go back in history, when the CBA was Govt
owned, their spread (margin between cost of loans and interest
charged) was around 4-4.5%. When mortgage originators came along,
RAMS, Aussie Home Loans etc, that put the pressure on banks to
change. Or banks would be left with all the costs, like paying out
Joe Bloggs his dole money each fornight, but not make a profit.

So today banks work on a 2% spread or just above that, but charge
fees to some of their customers, for some things. Its no different
to the local supermarket selling some things on special, often
below cost, but they have a much bigger margin on other items that
you also buy. You are just focussing on a few isolated products,
rather then the big picture.

Yes banks make alot more money from their cards these days, because
our shopaholic consumers cannot help themselves and tend to spend
it faster then they earn it. Pay your card off on time and it won't
cost you anything. Don't write out dud cheques and that won't
cost you anything either. Don't overdraw your account and that
won't cost you anything either.

Running banks is not cheap, from advertising to paying the cleaners,
it all has to be paid for.

So the only honest way to really look at the question of wether
banks are ripping you off or not, is having a look at the % profit
of their assets. That is around the 1% mark, after all loans,
charges, interst paid and charged, after everything is taken into
account

Yabby let us agree to disagree.

Getting back to the original topic, which had phuck all to do with Banks (but quite frankly should), the Federal Gov't should be able to Legislate, if necessary with the assistance of the States (who want to keep ALL their GST not use it to pay for Hospitals), but otherwise under the EXPRESS POWERS at s.51(ii), s.51(iii) and s.51(xx) to limit the amount of time a mining lease can be held, without being worked, without being forfeited to the Crown.

Yabby, I know you wish otherwise, but the Mining Magnates are up a certain creek in a Barbed Wire Canoe with no paddle, once the States can be called upon to act with the Federal Government (and as the only problem the States have is that they might lose the miners, reassure them they wont and they're in) and either lock the miners in, or if they choose to leave their lease untended, take it back & sell it to the highest bidder, then they have nowhere to go.

All the bluff and bluster under the sun won't help, their shareholders will not allow them to abandon leases that have taken billions to develop, and if they do, someone will purchase it at the fire sale that comes next.

I have no pity for the Mining Multinationals, they are ruthless, Corporate thugs (the primary driver behind Work Choices, what they did in WA under individual contracts was unconscionable). Time to pay up or phuck off.

I really think there is a degree of balance in what your saying Rehctub,
but I don't think 85% of us being affected indirectly is likely, as a result of the RSPT.

If all things were equal in a perfect world, we would have the Miners and the
Resource Owners sharing equally from the total dividend from Mining the resource,
and sharing the associated risks.

But I think it would be unwise for any Govt to hand over it's peoples resources,
based on conditions compliant to the Mining Giants favoured position without
placing it's own, or it's peoples interests first.

The Henry Tax review revealed an imbalance in the way we tax mining,
and the recommendation the Govt received, advocated the changes
the Gov't is attempting to implement.

This is essentially what Govt's are supposed to do.
(act based upon recommendations received I mean)
after spending taxpayers money on determining the
correct answers in the first place.

And lastly Rehctub as to >>Should taxpayers refund BP it's investment's for having such bad luck?
Yes! If tax payers want an additional 40% of the 'super profits', with zero risk investment.

I think that is like saying Barack Obama is responsible for the oil spill
because he expressed willingness to approve off shore drilling.

It is a little absurd, like a favourite 3 to 1 horse that wins every race that your using in your example.
No risk punting. What a deal Miners have already, if thats what they have.!

Mining is about investment v return v risk . Agreed Rehctub,
but Govt is about representing the best interests of the country.

Overstating the value of "business as usual"with Multinational Miners to Australia,
can't be in the countries best interests considering the International track record such Companies have of exploitive behaviour.

*Time to pay up or phuck off.*

Yes Custard, we know that if you had any say, you would soon turn
the place into a banana republic, using banana republic tactics.
That is exactly why they are poor and we are not.

As it stands, the miners have far more integrity, then either
you or our present Govt.

I remind you that Martin Ferguson, as well as previous Govts,
have pleaded and begged miners to invest in Australia, rather then
elsewhere. Now that 30 years of investment, often with extremely
crappy returns, is finally paying off for them, you are envious
and want to plunder them. Think again.

Mining companies have long standing agreements about leases and
they have them with the States. Only what is offshore, comes
under Commonwealth law. So keep sucking on your lemon :)

Rio pays its Pilbara train drivers around 200k$ per year. They
really don't need a union twit to stick his nose in and try and
make himself important to justify even being there.

I have seen no mining company say that its going to stop mining.
Given that they have already spent their money, they will keep
mining. Its new and large developments that will slow right now
and that is where the jobs are, including for local building and
engineering firms. I certainly can't see BHP spending 20 billion
$ on expaning Olympic Dam now. South Austrlian workers will be the
big losers. So be it, if that is the way it has to go.

I'm with custard on this. The hysteria whipped up by the mining industry on this is worthy of a Hollywood Oscar.

The fact is the share prices continue to rise even members of the Opposition are out there purchasing mining shares despite rhetoric about the sky falling in and doom and gloom.

We are talking super profits on mineral wealth, the minerals do not belong to the miners they only hold the rights to mine. We could ask more for the primary product in line with falls and rise in metal prices or we can just tax the Super profits. Taxing the profits is fairer for the miners and less risk on investment. There is no risk to investment from a tax, despite the drama played out by XStrata. If there are minerals to be mined and a profit to be made, someone else will be along to mine them.

What is more concerning is that people are actually falling for these scare mongering tactics.

Thinker 2>>It is a little absurd, like a favourite 3 to 1 horse that wins every race that your using in your example.
No risk punting. What a deal Miners have already, if thats what they have.!

Favorites get beaten every other day. I stand on my comment that if a punter had to part with almost 40% of his winnings, he may well re-think his bet.

As for miner having it easy. Yes, they do now, but who paid to find the deposits. They did, and now, and only now, the government wants a larger share.

pelican
The reason mining shares are being 'snapped up' is simply because not only is this tax going to be yet another failed project of Krud and his crusaders, but Krud has an awfull smell about him at present and it is most likely he will add yet another trophy to his already full 'failed trophy case', that being for the worst PM on record.

At least he has an extreemly wealth wife, so he has nothing to worry about, but what about the rest of us whos money he has pissed away in record time.

Even some of the experts now agree that for the government to want a larger slice of mining, they must also share some of the risk. Some are suggesting half the exploration costs.

It simply reafirms my thoughts that if you want to share the profits, you must also share the risks.

After all, that's what buying mining shares is all about and you can become involved with as little as $1000.

Now just think, if the gov had have invested in the major mining companies, instead of wasting billions, we would be collecting a larger share, ligitimately. Nothing wrong with that hey!

*The hysteria whipped up by the mining industry on this is worthy of a Hollywood Oscar.*

Hehe Pelican, yet if the Govt slapped a 58% tax on your wages,
you would be howling in the streets! But as you have never bothered
to invest a cent of your hard earned savings into developing our
mining industry, you want money for nothing here.

If I was earning multiple billions per year and minimizing tax, I'd expect the government to do so. After all, the marginal tax rate is already 46.5% (with medicare) if you are over, what? $150K?

The Government can tell the miners to go jump, they can't, their shareholders will not cop it. The one good thing the Rudd Government could do prior to leaving would be to implement it. I guarantee, once it is being used to pay for Health, the Coalition won't roll it back.

As for the miners, they can choose to stay or go... Their call (as it always is). If they go, they lose their investment and someone else will snap it up. Either way, we win...

Yabby you are scraping the bottom of the barrell here with comments like "slapped a 58% tax on your wages, you would be howling in the streets".

I would be if it were on my wages as a wage earner under $100K but we are talking about a tax on profits. There have been times in my life where I have paid higher than average taxes and I would expect to as a high income earner.

Emotive comments don't help here and are just further indication of the lack of logic and commonsense on this issue.

rehctub
I agree that Rudd is tainted with the smell of failure at the moment but this has nothing to do with the mining taxes despite the money being spent by miners on marketing that viewpoint.

Rudd's mistake was following it up with taxpayer funded government advertising and failing to consult with mining companies prior to announcing the tax and failing to come up with options for consultation. He was a bit bull at a gate but the principles are sound from MPOV.

Most voters are discontented about failure to deliver on promises and poorly managed programs.

Most of us, individuals and companies alike, don't like to pay more tax despite wanting more services. The question should be are we as the owners getting a fair price for the raw product. If not why not and there should be discussions around what is considered a fair arrangement for Australian citizens and in particular the Indigenous communities in some of those mining regions.

*I would be if it were on my wages as a wage earner under $100K but we are talking about a tax on profits*

Err what on earth do you think that those dividends are, for all
those grey nomands and others, who scrimped and saved all their
lives to provide for their own retirement?

You, Custard and others, all have the opportunity to get off your
little butts, do a bit of work and buy some mining shares if you wish
and if you think they are earning too much. In fact it would be
good for Australia and our current account deficit.

But nope, easier just to try and grab it by law from those who
have worked their little arses off.

And of course the big issue here. Mining royalties belong to the
States, not to Canberra. Its another grab for power by Canberra,
as Kevie wants control over those States, by emasculating them
financially. Shame on him, for as we have seen by the evidence,
Canberra has a huge problem with handling money, in fact they
are rather hopeless at it.

Overseas investors are going to take one look at this little joke
and next time Canberra pleads for overseas investment, they
will burst out laughing at our banana republic. But then,
when the resources market has turned cycle and we are on the ropes,
we might actually need the jobs

Yabby
We will have to agree to disagree on the impact of the mining tax.

"...all have the opportunity to get off your little butts, do a bit of work and buy some mining shares if you wish and if you think they are earning too much. In fact it would be good for Australia and our current account deficit."

Why do you make assumptions about people's work ethics based solely on their views on the mining tax? What makes you think those for the tax don't have confidence in mining shares? It is only the bleatings of the mining sector that are promulgating the view that mining shares are no longer viable. You can choose to take that on face value or do some lateral thinking. Your choice.

Is it only those involved in the mining sector who work hard? Try working for a while in the community and health sectors where resources are limited but demand high. Farmers I know also work very hard in a fluctuating market.

You are becoming emotive Yabby, argue on the merits of your view rather than attack the assumed work ethics of those whom you know nothing about.

Yabby, we aren't talking about little fella investors here... Stop trying to pretend we are. Ordinary investors cannot be made to pay over the top marginal tax rate, period.

The company on the other hand, if it declares a profit dramatically exceeding the benefit to the local community (which you were arguing for earlier, until I pointed out that FIFO miners do not a scrap for the local economy).

We don't get two bites at this cherry, once its gone, its gone... I have no intention of not only squandering my kid's inheritance but explaining to them how I paid for the privilege. The miners being targeted by these measures are majority owned by massive multinational corporations that rape and pillage the third world, except here, where it is actually cheaper than the third world.

As it is pretty much a done deal (if the States want to keep all those lovely GST $$$$, instead of losing them to the Commonwealth to fund the Health Reforms, they'll lock the miners in). All they have to do is modify existing legal arrangements, so that a lease which does export at least one ton of ore per year, is deemed to be abandoned and forfeit to the Crown.

That's all that need happen. That is why the Mining Companies are screaming the place down, because they don't have a hope in hell of beating it in Court, they either stop it now, or accept it forever after.

I'm wondering why you are so frantic in arguing this, you are skipping arguments, becoming emotive and generally refusing to accept reasoned argument. What iron have you in the fire, so to speak, and why do you think it's at risk?

Surely, anyone with half a brain realises that to tax a company for profits over 6%, which by the way they can earn sitting on thier hands is where the problem lies.

Furthermore, much of the infestructure used in mining has a very limmited life span. Sure, it gets depreciated, but, when it comes time to re-tool, how do they borrow the money again once thier balance sheet shows a huge hole in their profits thanks to this tax.

It is simply a 'no-brainer'.

*The miners being targeted by these measures are majority owned by massive multinational corporations*

Nonsense Custard. BHP has half a million mum and dad shareholders.
Super funds own a good chunk of the rest, super funds represent
the retirement savings of most Australians and many overseas
little people too. If you think that this bit of fiscal thuggery
is not going to affect their dividends, then you don't know how
to use a calculator.

I know parents and grandparents who buy their kids a few shares,
it teaches them how to save and how companies function, about the
economy etc. Its also pretty good for their future.

*until I pointed out that FIFO miners do not a scrap for the local economy).*

Yeah but that was rubbish too. As it happens, my nephew does FIFO
and when he's up North, he's based in Hedland. A few of them share
a house, he buys his food at Woolies, goes to the pub etc. PH is
screaming for better facilities and its only the WA royalties for
regions programme that is finally delivering. Its exactly the
reason why the last State Labor Govt was kicked out. Now Govt is
delivering and mining royalties are doing it.

In a town not far from me, when the last Labor Govt ruled they
could not even employ policemen as there were no houses for them
and their families. That is how bad things can get in the regions.
Mining royalties for regions has now delivered 2 houses. You city
slickers are totally unaware, about how city centric your focus is.
Well in WA that has changed and if Qld has any brains, they will
do the same with their royalties. That adds up to enough regional
seats to change the Govt.

*As it is pretty much a done deal*

Its not a done deal, as WA won't be blackmailed.
So keep sucking lemons Custard:)

* argue on the merits of your view rather than attack the assumed work ethics of those whom you know nothing about.*

Pelican, I could not care less about others work ethics. What I do
care about is when those who refuse to help themselves want to
rip off those who have worked their butts off to help themselves.

And I get really pissed off with this attitude of lets screw those
big corporations for all we can. For what are big corporations?
They are paper entities, respresenting hundreds of thousands of
little people, many who have worked their arses off to help themselves.

I once employed a 17 year old farm girl, straight from school.
She saved her pennies and when her mates were out buying pretty
dresses and cds, she was saving her pennies. She worked hard for
every dollar and did without many things. In the end she landed
up buying a heap of bank shares with her savings. Frankly I was
impressed. Impressed that a young kid would work so hard and think
about her future. Today she is married with 3 kids, her hard work
then, still benefits her every day.

There are plenty of people owning BHP shares, who have done much
the same, but they are clearly forgotten in this debate, by people
like yourself.

Yet Aussies can blow 20 billion a year on gambling, most of it down
the pokies.

Isn't it time that those of you who want to rip off the savings
of those who have worked hard, done without etc, get off your
arses just a bit and learn to help yourselves a bit more?

Of course mining companies are pissed off, so are their shareholders
and I remind you that around 40% of Australians own shares directly.

Mr Goose has finally now admitted that its not 17% tax that miners
are paying, but that under the new tax, they could be paying 58%,
as miners have claimed all along.

I am frankly amazed that you have been sucked in by Govt spin as
much as you have.

Pelican your right on the money for mine. And Custard.

The only people talking down the Australian Mining Industry
is the Australian Mining Industry an the Opposition.
I for one, don't understand their logic.

The very shareholders they profess to defend are the short term targets
of their shenanigans. But of course they know, that the longer term prospects
of their business is on the up and up, and all their shareholders
really have to do is hold or increase the investments to benefit , tax or no tax.

This was the whole point of posting the Big Money Spin post.
To point out the danger of talking down the economy.

Having an Abbott led Coalition Govt would see me moving
to New Zealand as I have previously stated.
(Now recognised officially as the the most stress free
and satisfied nation on the planet, incidentally).

It is interesting that the Australian electorate now favours a Coalition Govt
according to polling, even though they haven't released a policy yet other than
drawing the race card, trashing anything the Govt wants to do,
relentlessly character assassinating the P.M. and supporting Multinational Miners.

I maintain the position I've held from the start. The Gov't overall, has done
a reasonable job of the economy. The Govt was and is primarily the backbone
of recovery and not the Mining Industry. And that Yabby and Rehctub, is a fact.

$1000 might not be much, in your view to join the gravy train , but lot's
of people never have a spare grand to spend on shares in their entire lives Yabby.

That also is a fact despite their ethics (work or otherwise),
and even because of their ethics.

*relentlessly character assassinating the P.M.*

Ah poor Kevie. Never mind the porkies, the spin, the bad
temper etc. Thinker 2 loves him, how sweet :)

*The Govt was and is primarily the backbone
of recovery*

Actually it was Costello who set it all up and left things
in good order. Barack Obama could only dream of such luck,
he missed out and our Mr Goose has benefitted, as we see from
your post. The masses will be sucked in, some rather easily.

*but lot's
of people never have a spare grand to spend on shares in their entire lives Yabby.*

I happen to agree with you here. For indeed we have people in wheelchairs, people with mental problems etc, those who cannot
help themselves and who deserve all the help that we can give them.
For healthy Australians, its really their choice, 50 weeks by 20 bucks and you have made your start.

You should be watching Masterchef, Thinker 2 :) You might notice that
when people just try a little, they can achieve all sorts of things
which they thought they were never capable of.

Thinker2>> The Gov't overall, has done
a reasonable job of the economy. The Govt was and is primarily the backbone of recovery and not the Mining Industry

Wow! Where do I start.

Well firstly, they had money in the bank and nobody thought anyone could waste it so quickly. We also have a huge 'credit card debt' that we didn't have less than three short years ago.

Secondly, just count the number of trophies they have for'failed Projects' with the mining tax (in it's present form) at the engravers bench right now.

Ruds best achievment thus far is the way he and his lot have wasted the countless billions in what must be all time record time for any government, anywhere.

>>Having an Abbott led Coalition Govt would see me moving
to New Zealand as I have previously stated.

Carefull you don't hit your head on the door on your way out!

Yabby, why are you covering the board for the Mining Industry, they have spent millions on spin, way exceeding that spent by the government. They have suggested that jobs would be lost, local economies impacted, ad nauseum. You have repeated this crap as if it were gospel and it isn't. There is no way they will leave their investments, they have sunk too much into them.

If they abandon them, they revert to the Crown & the Crown will sell them to the highest bidder. Jobs will not be lost, local economies, etc. will not be effected. So the entirety of their spin in that regard is shown to be just that, spin.

Now, as to the investors, yes, there are investors, but their share of these companies is firstly miniscule compared to the large corporate investors with voting rights and their percentage of the profits are miniscule as well.

But to the extent their profits are reduced, ke sara... I don't see why I am being forced to subsidise them, by selling my children's inheritance for a pittance. Work ethic, equitable distribution, is all crap. I see absolutely no reason why those who have the money to invest now have the right to rape our countries natural resources, selling them for bottom dollar to suit their own selfish needs/wants.

OUR natural resources are NOT RENEWABLE, ie. they can only be sold the once. There is absolutely no value adding with the majority of this, no follow on investment, no refining, no anything. It is the most shortsighted approach possible and we are supposed to feel sorry for the idiots who are making bottom dollar returns from it?

Yabby, for some reason you seem determined to see these minerals be stripped from the ground, as cheaply and nastily as possible, shipped overseas, refined, smelted & shipped back to us, so that you don't miss out on your bit?

GAGF

Yabby
Most of us work hard, whether you run a business and pay tax or are a PAYE. Business also pay tax on their profits. The Government is asking the mining industry pay a fairer share. As usual there is the great brainwashed that believe corporations should be absolved purely on the basis of risk on investment ignoring the fact that the tax is only on profits - the risk factor is no longer applicable once profits are realised and the investment sound.

Risk factors are inherent in any business venture and that alone is not a good enough reason not to pay a fairer share.

A PAYE earning $180,001 and over pays $55,850 tax plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 (taken from the ATO website).

Why is it always the working man who has to pay more than their share of the tax burden while companies continue to avoid tax wherever possible.

Ken Henry has it about right in regard to the mining industry hysteria.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902825.htm

Did any of you Rudd lovers notice how much the mining royalties put directly into the Queensland budget?

Do any of you have any idea of what their combined payroll is in Queensland?

Did you know they actually pay their workers, correctly, & on time? Wow, with this labor lot in QLD, I'd like to see that.

Hasbeen
You obviously don't read OLO very well otherwise you would know that many arguing for the tax have not defended Rudd on the essentials of his government and I remember Custard's comments on another thread regarding his/her disappointment with Rudd.

That is the trouble with the party system in this country it breeds the sort of attitude Hasbeen displays where you have to stick like glue to one side of politics regardless of how damaging their policies might be, and criticise the opposing one no matter how good their policies.

It is the sad state of politics Australian style.

Hasbeen if you want to argue the merits or non-merits of the Tax feel free but don't purport to know the minds of others.

*I don't see why I am being forced to subsidise them, by selling my children's inheritance for a pittance.*

Custard, get used to it sunshine, you don't "subsidise" anyone, for
you don't own anything. Once again, minerals belong to the States,
not to you. That is why States are paid royalties and if anyone
should be active, its States getting better royalty deals, as has
been happening in both WA and Qld.

The problem is, neither you nore Pelican understand the basics of
how companies make decisions. Just read what informed business
commenators are saying about all this. Reading the Union Weekly
is not going to do it for you, I am afraid, for they know as
little as you do.

Of course jobs won't be lost in mines already going. They are not
where all the jobs are and money is spent, they just tick over.
Its in new ventures that the serious money is spent, if its worth
while doing. If its not worthwhile, it won't happen. Take most
of the profits in tax and it won't be worth investing.

How do you think all those thousands of small mining prospectors
are financed? It by investors bankrolling them. If there is no
worthwhile profit at the other end, its simply not worth bankrolling
them in the first place, better invest the money elsewhere.
Money is easily moved, it can move industries and it can move
countries overnight if required.

Yabby that is just not so. Banks will bankroll anything they think will turn a profit, and where there is a belief they will get a return on investment with obviously attention to risk management factors.

The tax is on the PROFIT. How will this affect one's ability to pay on the loan given the costs of the loan are deductible.

This will make no difference to the banks in terms of risk management.

Hang on Pelican. Last year BHP paid 6.3 billion in tax, they are
hardly avoiding it. On top of that they paid payroll taxes and a
host of other taxes. Then they created the opportuniy for thousands
of workers to make serious money and pay a heap more.

43% is hardly no tax. Miners are not unreasonable people. Had
the Govt sat down with miners and come up with a win-win situation
for all, that would have been the way to do it.

Instead power has gone to their heads, as happens with many 2 bob
politicians when its handed to them for 5 minutes and they thought
they could thump this through as the public would not care about
miners. How it was done, is as much at issue here as anything.

Now they are crapping on that they will discuss things, but all
the major points are not up for negotiation. Its all frigging spin!

There are a number of issues here. Firstly Rudd has no right to
ride roughshod over States rights to minerals and royalties.
Secondly in a claimed first world economy, we should not be
using banana republic tactics in business, or that is what we
will become.

I remember you praising the virtues of Venezuela. I saw a list
of interest rates last night. If you were in Venezuela, you
would be paying 20% plus. That is what happens in banana republics.

If mines break even under new tax or make a loss then we receive no compensation at all for the resources removed. China will be interested in getting into ventures as they are not multi-national trying to make a profit for shareholder rather a nation needing resources. So we could be giving away from nothing.

International investors require incentive. This tax is to try and return profits to normal business levels. The tax is to fund non mining sector tax cuts because ordinary profits are not attractive to foreign investors due to high taxes. So the whole rationale is to transfer from mining to non-mining sector exposure to foreign investment. They have not been interested so far why now? So who will want to stay the course, China. They want to make profit for shareholders? Nope. Can the government ensure that majority of minerals mined are paid for? Nope. Prefer profit driven enterprise that will fight tooth and nail for high commodity prices and there pay increased wages, taxes, royalties or kick them out and have the miners who just want our stuff and if they make a loss they do not care.

The minute the commodity prices come off the boil we may face massive liabilite.

So are Australians committed to the bad times as well when we will be paid nothing at all and in fcat may have to pay for failed projects. Also we do not have enough investment capital so who will pay for the mines, very capital intensive.?

So the deep pockets will decide at end of day, Not the miners, not the governemnt and not us. The ones with billions of dollars will decide and they really do not seem to like the new tax so I do not like the chances of success. And if we fail we will be donating the resources for nothing. How wonderful.

*Yabby that is just not so. Banks will bankroll anything they think will turn a profit*

What isn't so? Mining exploration companies can't guarantee anything.
They head out there with their geologists and drill rigs, they
sink holes. Most of the time they find nothing. Occasionaly one
hits paydirt, like IIRC recently Acacia, when they were down to
one geologist who sank one last hole and found gold. Banks simply
do not finance this kind of thing.

Any large mining development needs large investor equity which
banks won't cover either. Because of the uncertainty. If tomorrow
China pulls the plug for a while, iron ore and coal prices would
crash, banks simply don't take those sorts of risks.

For investors, if the Govt is taking most of any profits, its simply
not worth investing in mining. Better off just buy bank shares
for instance.

Yabby
I am not sure what Venezuela has got to do with anything, next you will bring Aldi and Woolworths into this debate.

Yabby, the government has cut other taxes and for many mining companies they will actually pay less as the emphasis will be on profit not on the royalty regime which is often greatly distorted according to Ken Henry (read the previous link).

So Yabby what you are saying then is that any business venture that carries great risk should not have to pay a fair tax on profits? As usual it is the middle classes paying a disproportionate amount of their income on tax while big companies continue to expect benefits.

Wayne Swan said recently "It's impossible to justify a system where Australians pay proportionately more tax as their income goes up, while mining companies pay proportionately less tax as their profits go up," he said."

Swan quoted as saying "It's impossible to justify a system where Australians pay proportionately more tax as their income goes up, while mining companies pay proportionately less tax as their profits go up

This is wrong though, tax is the same percentage be it 28%, 35% whatever it is the same percentage.

The difference is carried forward losses can cause a distortion in numbers. The profits have exploded last few years and would look more dramatic as the previous years were losses many of which are carried forward. So not an apple to an apple comparison and very dishonest on behalf of Swan or stupid, take your pick. Also a lot of profit is really from the investment miners have made themselves.

So in ground value for iron ore is about $8 a tonne. Now they sell for between $80 and $160. So if an aussie went to the outback and found a bunch or iron ore they would not get more than $10 a tonne tops. Then the value increases due to closeness to port, to roads and rail. If the miner has to build all this then they should get the profit from that part of the process. This tax actually steals that profit that is purely from the miners input, at the expense of minerals that are less economic. So trade of mineral income (royalty) for income based on miners hard efforts/improvements and financial investment. This is why many see it as appropiation...or theft.

So miner who raises money for ports, roads, rails wll be angry. the guy whose falls off the side of a hill not a ship may not be so peturbed. There is no logical to treat all equal.

Pelican, your comment about Venezuela at the time matters, because
it gave me an understanding about what you know, when it comes to
how economies function and why.

Under Ken Henry's scheme, if the BP oil spill had happened here,
taxpayers would be wearing 40% of the 35 billion $ plus damages.
Do you really think that is so smart? I, along with many
business commentators, think that Henry has this one wrong.
Relying on a single man's advice for the economic policies of
a whole country, is IMHO not a good idea, as the Americans found
out with Greenspan.

The mining companies don't pay less as turnover rises. Its
rubbish. As Swan has finally admitted, under the new tax they
could be paying 58% tax. Under the old one, BHP are paying 43%.

It makes great sense to have various forms of taxation and not
just one, that is why royalties are a good idea. Or clever
Chinese accountants will make sure that their miners pay nothing,
as the Missus points out.

Qld increased their coal royalty to 10%, for coal worth over 100$
a tonne. WA could do the same with iron ore, that would make far
more sense.

If you are really intersted, go to the Business Spectator website
and take a look what people like Alan Kohler and similar are saying.
You know, the guy on ABC TV each night. These are not miners,
these are not thugs, these are informed business journalists who
understand how and why economies operate as they do.

Hay Pelican, pot & kettle again.

Why did you only read the first 5 words of my post, then comment on that, without even looking at the subject.

I am not welded to anything, although I will admit I think Rudd is one of the worst people Oz has produced.

There is absolutely no doubt about character assassination of the PM,
if your looking at the Bolt article in the Herald Sun today, complete with doctored picture of the PM
in despotic costume, with accompanying hysterical headline.

Regardless of who is responsible for our current good fortune
(and it wasn't Costello Yabby), fact is we are in a fortunate position
compared to the rest of world. Treasury predicts return to surplus budgets in 3 years.
This massive debt claim you make can be repaid in 3 yrs by a tax change.
Costello sold the farm to resolve debt over 12 and half years.
Swan want's to resolve debt in 3yrs something Costello would never have had the courage to do.

We are not in dire straights because of the Rudd Gov't. That is gross overstatement,
as is the mining industry's own attempts to talk it's own prospects down
and grossly overstate the effects of an RSPT on it's business.

I heard criticism today of the new Hungarian Govt trying cast blame on
the old Hungarian Govt by saying their country was in a Greek like position.
EU reps suggested that was a naive thing to do for the new Govt, and also incorrect.

Not unlike the antics of our own opposition Yabby and Rehctub.
And your wrong I'm not a Rudd lover at all.

But I could not imagine a Tony Abbott Prime Ministership!.

And I'll be carful not to hit my head on the polling booth on the way in either Rehctub.

Custard>>There is no way they will leave their investments, they have sunk too much into them.

Yopu just don't get it, do you!

Of cause they won't abandon thier current projects, as they have already spent billions finding the deposits, then building plants to mine them. It's the future projects that are at risk.

>>I don't see why I am being forced to subsidise them, by selling my children's inheritance for a pittance

Yes, would have been nice to tell them this before they spent billions, hey!

BTW, our minerals are fetching record prices, hardley what one would consider as 'given away'.

Pelican>>Why is it always the working man who has to pay more than their share of the tax burden while companies continue to avoid tax wherever possible.
Clive Palmer paid $70million in personal tax last year and, rather than thanking him, you lot bag him. Why?

Thinker 2>>Treasury predicts return to surplus budgets in 3 years

So what happens if the mining tax does not get passed, then what?

The fact remain that if anyone wants a share in anything they must also share in the risk, much in the way that shareholders do.

Buy shares and you can share the profits, if there are any.

Government involvement in mining does not seem to have a great record, the Chillagoe Mungana situation in about the thirties is a good example. The multilateral agreement on tin prices, which collapsed in the late 80's along with the Australian tin mining industry (just starting to come back now)is another. All this talk of "our childrens mineral inheritence", "the good of all the Australian people", and "belonging to all Australians" are just fancy ways of saying consolidated revenue. Why does this potential revenue source need such emotive description? becasue we are being sold a pup.

Remember when the GST was going to simplify the tax system? wasnt 10% consumption tax the thing that would save us all...? it never happened. They banged on about the price of a cooked chicken and a loaf of bread, and had these few petty items exempted. Not so petrol, currently about 58% tax, smokes even more, gambling 30%, and income tax which was going to be 25% flat rate is currently 30-75% depending on who you are.

The miners are rightly brassed off about it, but I wish they could see that the government will compromise down to 25% with the miners to get it through, and then ramp it right back up.

*There is absolutely no doubt about character assassination of the PM,*

Your maternal concerns for Kevie are all very sweet thinker 2, but
I can assure you that all politicians are regularly lampooned by the
press and its a good thing. For too many of them get carried away
with their own self importance. It brings them back to planet earth,
at least just a little bit.

*and it wasn't Costello Yabby*

Err it was. Although of course Hawke and Keating do deserve the
credit for getting the whole thing going, realising that Australia
had to join the real world, for the merino sheep had collapsed.
Keating was economically literate, unlike Mr Swan and Mr Rudd.

*Costello sold the farm to resolve debt*

When Costello took over, we were mortaged to the roof. He left us
debt free. Now Mr Goose is going to repay the debts in three years,
that he created in his first three years. Wow. Pink batt debacles,
cash splashes, shoddy school halls, they all need to be repaid.

*And your wrong I'm not a Rudd lover at all.*

Ok, so you just need to bemother him and protect him from all
those naughty journalists, giving him a hard time. The poor man.

Yabby,
When Costello took over we actually weren't "mortgaged to the roof".

Despite the political hysteria, as a percentage of GDP our debt was quite manageable.

Now, with all our major assets flogged off to foreign owners, more of our money - as a percentage of GDP - is leaving the country as dividends than it was before so in real terms he left us worse off in many ways.

A great deal of his surplus was intangible stuff like HECS debts which may or may not ever be repaid.

It was our personal debt that was too high but that grew enormously during Costello's watch and his tendency was to use the boom revenue to buy votes instead of building needed infrastructure.

You don't generate too many jobs with "sandwich-and-a-milkshake" tax cuts.

Despite Rudd's flaws you could do a lot worse with Abbott.

Yabby
Re Venezuela: the trouble is you take one comment about Venezuela and suddenly decide I am the marketing agent for that country and take it as one who believes it holds no flaws. I am sure if you looked hard enough you would find something positive to comment about Venezuela without it meaning you hold it up as the paragon of nations.

Rudd is certainly an imperfect being but I hold more hope in the ALP (without Rudd as leader hopefully) in my preference vote than I do with a Coalition government.

I suspect with all the hysteria over the mining tax there will be concessions - Rudd is good at the back down position so you and those who think the mining sector is doomed for paying more tax on massive profits can sleep soundly in your beds.

:)

Pelican, one gold star for you, for so cleverly trying to slither
out of the Venezuela comment :) At the time however, the context
was clear, so were the implications. You are pretty bright, so
I hope that one day you will use that brainpower to gain an
understanding about how business operates. Its not the evil
goblin that many think it is. The Business Specatator website
is a great place to do just that. But its up to you.

I certainly don't have sleepless nights about the mining tax, its
just a shame for Australia's future that is all. The law of
unintended consequences will apply here. BHP are already pushing
ahead on their 3 billion tonne Canadian potash deposit, which for
me as a farmer is great news! That will suck up their future
investment capital for a few years, as its huge. South Australia
will just have to miss out, tough titties to them.

*as a percentage of GDP our debt was quite manageable*

Rache, that is exactly what Britain, the USA, Spain, Greece
and others said. Along came a crisis and took them way over the
hedge. Planning ahead for a rainy day is sound policy, Costello
got it right. That is why we came through so well. If Swan
had now been lumbered with huge interest payment, his budgets
would not look so pretty. In Britain now, they are paying as
much interest, as they spend on running their schools.

*with all our major assets flogged off to foreign owners*

Not so, alot of our major assets were flogged off to Australian
owners. Share ownership increased quite a bit under Costello. The
Australian problem is that too many prefer playing the pokies,
rather then save something for a rainy day. If more would,
more of our assets would be Australian owned, we would not have
a current account problem as we have.

Costello instilled confidence in the business community to invest
in Australia, so they did, jobs were the result. Costello bears
no responsibility for people living it up and borrowing.

The tax is really to fund tax cuts to big banks and other corporations so the question really is do we risk a capital strike just so bankers can get richer. The argument that miners are greedy and the average Australian ripped off is a total lie because there is nothing about this policy that redistributes the revenue to all Australians. that is a lie, I cannot even call it spin on Rudd's behalf..total outright lie. Already WA is getting vote buying promises.

I thank you Yabby for your accurate remarks about Keating.

Costello inherited a rock solid economy from Keating with very low inflation and unemployment figures and very manageable International Debt as described by Rache.

Interestingly , and ironically, Keating himself (as Australia's youngest ever Treasurer) had inherited high double digit inflation, raging unemployment and high International debt levels from the previous Howard Treasury.

Costello didn't cause as much destruction to the modern Australian economy created by Keating as he could have, and this is to his credit.

But I think it was needless and harmful to sell profit making assets like Telstra to foreign interests. (The mum and dad investor thing is a red herring). Inflation generated by these private interests controlling essential services is creating a problem for today's Australia. Their pricing ( increasing massively beyond the inflation rate ) is reducing the standard of living of Australians whose wages are not rising to compensate.

When it came to economics John Howard wasn't competent,
I sympathise with Peter Costello's plight and genuinely feel for him
and think he would have made a better Prime Minister the Howard.

I also think Turnbull would make a better Prime Minister than Abbott

Yabby
You seem to forget that I have run a business. Why do you remember all my comments except the ones that would hinder your argument. :)

Not trying to wriggle out of the Venezuela comment - why would I?

A silver star for you in your quest to distract from the issue at hand and misconstrue any comment out of context for your own purposes.

*You seem to forget that I have run a business.*

Yup you did and you gave up. Now you talk of doing courses, when
I suggest another business. Your above experience does not mean
that you understand the business world. I've been in it for over
30 years and I learn something new, nearly every day.

*Not trying to wriggle out of the Venezuela comment - why would I?*

Its a human foible dear, we do try and defend ourselves. Fair enough.
If I didn't think you were intelligent, I would take no notice of
your comments, or remember them, so take it as a compliment :)

Thinker 2, I think if you bothered to do your homework, you would
find that you are distorting history. Fact is that under Costello,
unemployment, interest rates and inflation figures all improved and
real average weekly wages grew by 24% in real terms.

It was under Keating that I paid 18% interest on my bank loans,
during "the recession we had to have".

But I don't blame Keating for that, for he was correct, Australia
had to reform. The last real backward PM was in fact Frazer.
He was from the old protectionist school and when Howard was
treasurer, he very nearly resigned because of all this.

But it was eventually Keating who did the hard stuff, it took
years to digest and pain in the process. Costello improved things
further, for idealogically they are remarkably similar.

Australia is all the better for it, both men deserve the credit.
This present mob however, really don't know what they are doing.

In all sincerity Yabby, I haven't really looked into why Howard was such a bad treasurer.
Otherwise there may be truth in what you say.

But it's also ( I think ), fair to say, that we haven't really had time to determine,
whether or not this mob (as you say) is economically fit or not.
Nor are the advertised opinions of vested interests relevant to this.

It's true the Govt has not faired well administratively in it's first term,
but it's heart has been in the right place and this is important to me.
One term is just not enough time for any Govt to implement it's program,
especially when be obstructed by opposition in the upper house.

And if the Govt sticks to it's guns on the Mining Tax (I agree with Gerry Harvey),
then I don't except that Australia would be damaged by giving the Govt another term.

Perhaps the true Australian ideal is an amalgam of both sides of politics.
What do think Yabby?.

Thinker2

no time to see if this mob is lousy ?

This morning Anthony Albanesi called for:

-NO to a carbon tax
-YES to a commercial based carbon trading arrangment.

WHY? :)

This might help you answer that.. look who the CHAIRMAN is

http://www.envex.com.au/

You can see what they do....right ?

See any possible connection ?

LOOK at this one too.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/blighs-husband-to-head-new-department/2007/10/19/1192301036894.html

If you look closely the level of *connection* between a Left wing/Labor Politics the legislative and commercial aspects of the 'climate change' industry...it's almost scary..no..it IS scary.. they have so much to lose of cap and trade laws are not implemented.

*but it's heart has been in the right place and this is important to me.*

It might be to you, Thinker 2. Many politicians have their heart
in the right place, look at the Greens, but if they simply
don't understand the future consequences of their actions in the
real world, disaster inevitably follows and that is the problem.

Personally, I am not a party person, but an issues person. The
problem with our public is, they like crawlers, who tell them what
they want to hear and suckhole up to them. Howard was good at
it, so was reelected. People like Costello and Keating were seen
as arrogant, yet when it came to facts, they had the smarts to
do what needed doing.

I wasn't actually against Rudd for a long time. But now its clear
that they are starting to cause long term damage to the place, so
either he has to rethink things and back down, or he is going to
have an awfull lot of people against him. The problem with Henry
is that he is a bureaucrat and an academic. Rudd and Swan rely
on him totally for advice. Yet its rather silly to ask Henry
to devise a new tax system and then have treasury review it.
Henry's underlings are hardly going to go against him.

So I think the Govt needs to do some real soul searching right now
and get some independant advice, if they understand what is good
for them. But the way I see it, they have their blinkers on and
are going to try and use spin to dig their way out. It won't work.

Now I know my position is sound Yabby - you usually make personal comments.

Not that it is any of your business but I gave it up due to an illness and even if that were not the case, being in business does not make anyone an expert.

On one hand you state you have been in business for over 30 years but learn something new everyday, but when I mention doing some courses apparently I am not allowed the same latitude to learn but most be all-knowing at all times.

Sheesh...just admit you are wrong about the tax Yabby. You know you can do it.

:)

Pelican, doing a course on business, teaches the very mundane, boring
stuff, not what I am on about at all.

One of the interesting things that I've learned on OLO, is how
little, reasonably intelligent posters know about the business world
and how it functions.

I was watching a bit of Bloomberg after lunch and there was much
discussion about the BP dividend payment cuts, due to their oil
spill. UK pension funds are in panic, as it will cost around 600
Pounds per pensioner! That is serious money for a pensioner and
highlights what I have been on about for so long: most of these
large so called evil multinationals, are in fact largely owned by
everyday mums and dads through their pension funds.

I've read enough of your posts over time, to have a pretty good
idea of what you think and why you think it. Its not the hardware
that is the problem, you just lack a bit of software :)

So all I'm suggesting is that if you really want to understand
business and economics a bit, take the time to listen to what
informed and largely objective, seasoned business commentators
are writing about all this. Alan Kohler, Robert Gottliebson and
similar, comment every day in the commentary section of Business
Spectator. What they are saying is worth knowing, if you want
to pass an informed opinion on all this.

As to the damage, well that is already starting to happen. Money
is being pulled from small prospecting companies and they are
the people who go out and find minerals in the first place.
That is less bad news for tomorrow, but very bad news for a few
years from now. Its also a great shame for Australia's future

Yabby
I am not doing a business course per se, but something related to the area I am thinking about in terms of a business idea. Why does it matter? You make assumptions that I don't read the same stuff you do, just because we disagree. Talk to a group of economists - same education, same reading experience and yet many differing opinions.

Your comments are completely off tangent from the discussion.

No matter what you think about any particular contributor's credentials the debate is about the proposed mining tax. I suspect it won't go ahead as planned in any cases, too many vested interest groups making lots of noise, and Rudd won't have the mettle methinks.

Gerry Harvey supports the mining tax although he does not approve of the way the government went about it, lack of consultation and so forth, of which I agree.

But that is where I leave you, one can only go around and around the same argumetns for so long.

The tax is so wrong. Rudd is behaving like he does not know what to do so stalls. He would earn $50,000 a year in the private sector then be lucky to keep his job. Now he is in meeting with mining exces who are on a different level to the wuss. He is so far out of his depth I would feel sorry for him if he had shown some simiar concern for the lowly staff workers he has abused on so many occasions. As it is Karma lol

*Talk to a group of economists - same education, same reading experience and yet many differing opinions.*

Pelican, your answer once again gives the game away. Economists
like Henry are actually part of the problem. All theory and
no practical experience.

That is why I suggested a couple of seasoned business journalists,
who work with the business community every day and in particular
understand our mining industry and what drives it. These are
all areas of expertise, which if people don't understand, they
simply cannot make an informed judgement.

But stay naive if you wish :)