I totally support a mining super tax to more equally share the benefits of this - once only - mining boom.
Mining is a special case because land owners do not, at least in Australia, own rights to the minerals in their land.
That ownership resides with government and thus with the people, you and me.
So, in what universe does it make sense for us to give up our benefit in order to increase the wealth of a billionaire who may not even live in Australia?
As to the misuse of access to media space, just look at the campaign against the original super profits tax.
Ordinary Australians, most of whom did not own mining shares, opposed a tax that would benefit them.
How did that happen? Aussies aren't stupid.
They were lied to in a massive tv ad campaign funded by, now, who was it again?
Oh, right, it was the mining companies.
My latest blog takes a lighthearted look at our mining magnates, if you'll pardon the shameless self promotion.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I am no great lover of mining magnates, in fact I find some of them rather distasteful, however that is no reason to destroy our golden egg producers.

Sure some country towns are not such nice sleepy hollows since the boom, but hundreds of thousands of Ozzies are much richer, & better off, [not necessarily the sane thing], because of it.

Without the foreign exchange earned by mineral exports, we could not have afforded to import much we have today. That computer you are using may still be in Asia not Oz.

We have all benefited from the initiative of these people to some extent. Just imagine the world without them. Our mining industry would be run by government. How many billions do you reckon mining would have lost last year with Julia & Sawney running it. I shudder at the thought.

God just think of it. Every tradesman or miner would have an academic on one shoulder, & a bureaucrat on the other, both telling him what to do. If he ever did anything, it would be wrong.

Don't believe me, then look at Russia. Bankrupt by its central government control, it is now becoming wealthy again as individuals exploit its raw materials. Yes they make billions, but the people are all a little richer.

So do be careful of that envy folks. Perhaps it's better to settle for just a slice of the cake. Grab for the whole thing, & it just may be crushed under foot in the ensuing bun fight.

Thought should not be bought, but it is.
I agree with most, the very rich want to own us all.
But in America, and Abbott thinks we are part of their Republican party, cash is buying the candidate to run against President.
We, if we let it happen, will soon be bought and sold by the very dull very rich.

Only sort-of, Anthonyve

>>Mining is a special case because land owners do not, at least in Australia, own rights to the minerals in their land. That ownership resides with government and thus with the people, you and me.<<

The proper designation is that the minerals belong to the Crown. This was established in the 1850s, and because each State reports directly to the Queen (via their G-G, of course), this meant that each State exercised the rights, individually. Minerals were not mentioned in the Constitution, so they remain in the gift of the State, not Canberra, to this day.

The Crown, of course, does not want to get her hands dirty digging up the goodies, so allows commoners to do this in exchange for a royalty on everything they find. Once the appropriate royalty has been paid, the plebs can go ahead and sell it to whomever they like, and keep the change.

Check it out, the documentation is all there. Western Australia's is probably the most accessible - here's a good place to start:

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/4407.aspx

So it is pointless waving your arms at the miners for stealing your birthright. It was on-sold long ago by your friendly local State Government.

Pericles,
And your point is?
Obviously, the crown doesn't keep the royalties, the government does.
My point precisely. No 'sort of' about it.
Ergo, the government is simply doing its job when it maximises the return it can get for the people's asset via taxation, levies, or, if you prefer, 'royalties'.
And i would further add that billionaires are not remotely a prerequisite for a healthy mining industry, thus, to respond to the thread's title what is good for the billionaire has no bearing whatsoever on what is good for the battler.
For example public companies whose shares are in part owned by our super funds can and do achieve just as much for national mining profits as do companies owned by magnates.
Especially regarding Gina Rhinehardt whose only claim to fame is winning a lucky sperm competition.
Given her beginnings she could hardly have failed to achieve what she has.
The drover's dog could have done as well.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Do come off it Anthonyve.

If it had been Julia or Swanny, who had won that race, they would have lost the lot within months of getting their hands on it.

I don't know how people so naive survive in this world.