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.