Ok Yabby, so what is the combined assets of the big four. Not the capitalized assets, (share values),just the bricks, mortar, fixtures and dollars in the bank.

Now are you trying to tell me that banking is a higher risk than mining?

Rehtub, you'd have to read up the financials of the major banks
to add it up, but its often quoted in the press and comes back
to return on equity. Last time I checked, there were some miners
and even the odd manufacturer whose return on equity was well
ahead of the banks.

As to your second question, it depends on the miner and it depends
on the bank. An investment in BHP is certainly far safer then
and investment in Citibank, Bank of America, or most other global
banks. As to our local banks, yes they have done well whilst times
have been good, but when the Australian economy tanks at some stage
in the future, we will see.

If say the economy tanked completely, a miner like BHP could shut
down operations and wait for better times. A bank cannot do that.
Their shareholders are the first with their heads on the chopping
block, as we see now in Europe.

Yabby, no need to do the math, the banks have office space, often leased, IT goods, generally written off in 12 to 24 months, and really, that's about it.

What else do they have?

Furthermore, they don't run the risks the miners do, as they have their margins, they also charge for just about everything, and some.

The miners on the other hand are exposed to many risks, including commodity price drops, failed projects, environmental changes by governments. The list goes on.

Now I have no problem with taxing more, but not the way that is proposed.

Vic and the ACT don't want the royalties increased as they will miss out, but then again, when their government receives stamp duty on a property sale of one million, instead of brisbanes $600K, do they share that with us. No!

Another issue I have with the tax, is that it is unfair to shift the goal posts mid stream.

A percentage based royalty would fix that as well.

Now back to the banks, they make a killing with little risk, other than self inflicted.

Rechtub please!
I fall out with people I like and admire, yabby and Banjo, Bazz Poirot for a start.
Because my views are not for sale or swap, I just will not put on the cloak of niceness to fit in.
All views have value not one more, than honest ones.
Your rather insulting questions about our differences ignore I am not to only one here who disagrees with your stand.
I would still have that beer and sausage sanger with you, but if you got in to politics would insist on wearing personal protective equipment.
Both ear plugs and muffs.
I get it wrong, you do too, both of us must learn, every day, fixed positions, unwillingness to learn is brain death.
You are quite wrong yabby and gee forgive me, runner, are right.
Without sound stable banks we are nothing.
Super tax!? come on your would scream the place down if it was put on snags.
Have a great year my grumbling opponent but hear this.
If you both under estimate my ability to think, and over estimate yours, you will be easy meat in our verbal tennis mate.

*A percentage based royalty would fix that as well.*

Well we already have that. Its paid to State Govts.Check your
constitution, the states own minerals under the ground, the
Commonwealth owns offshore minerals.

*Now back to the banks, they make a killing with little risk, other than self inflicted.*

Sounds just like butcher shops to me. So why a super tax on banks
and not butcher shops?

Correct me if am wrong yabby, but I was of the opinion that royalties were a set amount, not a percentage.

Now on the other hand, if they are a percentage, well why the tax?

I have have always maintained, if you wish to share in the profits, you must also share in the risks. Thats what shares are about.

I think you get my point with the banks and thier return on capital investment.

As for belly, I hav no idea what he is on about.