Dear Anthony,

In the US people have long regarded the Democrats
as the party more likely to favour the underdog,
and the Republicans as the party more closely
tied to business interests. Or as someone
jokingly summarised - D stands for drive, (Democrat -move
forward), R for reverse (Republican - go backwards).

What we're currently witnessing in the US is a
de-alignment - a breakdown of traditional
loyalities in favour of a more fluid party system,
in which people pick and choose among personalities
and positions with little regard for party labels -
to vote for candidates of each party for different
offices. In fact recent polls have found that
only a small amount of the public considers it
important what party a presidential candidate
belongs to. Certainly, a trend towards a
de-alignment of party loyalties would not be
unexpected in a post-industrial society whose
hallmarks are individualism and choice.

Perhaps this will one day happen in Australia,
or at the very least - perhaps the Opposition
will select the right sort of leader - who will
be willing to see the bigger picture on
policies that are good for the country - and be
willing to give those policies support.
One can only live and hope.

Dear SM,

Your comment about the mining industry needs
to be clarified. You stated that the mining
industry gives employment to many workers
who earn high wages and pay high taxes but
the reality is that the mining industry itself
does not pay its fair share of taxes and those
employed in the mining industry constitutes
only approx. 2 per cent of the national workforce.
That does not mean that the mining industry
contributes to the wealth of the country. The wealth
is not evenly shared. A mining tax will create an
even balance - which is what the government is
trying to achieve but does not have the support of
the Coalition.

The Coalition believes that the more wealth the mining
industry has the more financial support the Coalition
will have. And that is why presumably they are against
this tax.

Ant,

This is not the trickle down / supply side economics that Reagan tried to employ, which is one extreme, the high taxing socialism that is the other extreme that is also discredited.

The trickle down effect provides employment and wealth to many, but not evenly and bypasses those that need protection. On the other hand high taxes and government redistribution of wealth taken too far kills the golden goose who largely take their profits and skills elsewhere.

The mining companies will invest where their returns are more certain, and Africa, Canada, and South America are providing attractive returns. This can be clearly seen in mining investments. In 2007 Australia had nearly 22% of new global mining investment, while today it is about 15%. The mining companies between state royalties and corporate tax, pay in excess of 40% of their profits in tax (higher than any other companies) to state and federal coffers, and the nearly quadrupling in corporate tax revenue since 2007 has saved federal labor's budget from massive deficits.

The clarion cry that the miners must pay their "fair share" is pure populism, as no one has yet defined what is "fair". In labor's case, it just means "more", and the miners are perceived as easy targets.

Dear SM,

I agree with most of what you've stated in your last post.
It's an excellent summation overall. Apart from your
statements concerning the mining tax. From my understanding -
It's only a small number of BIG mining companies that will
be affected by this tax - and if as you say - they will pack
up and invest overseas - they will leave a vacuum that
overseas investment companies will be desperate to fill under
whatever conditions the government dictates. All we have to do
is look at the oil industry that is exploring overseas
resource potentials.

We should not buy into the scare tactics that the Coalition
is trying to sell - regarding the mining tax. The mining
companies will always make their BIG profits by whatever
means they can - and if Labor costs in Australia are too
high they will import overseas workers to maintain their
profit margins. With new technology the human work-force
is slowly diminishing. As I stated earlier- the workforce in the mining industry is a miniscule proportion of the total workforce in Australia - and the wealth of the land should be shared by the whole nation - which it currently isn't. The mining tax will correct this
situation.

cont'd ...

It's not as if the mining industry is creating something out of nothing - like the manufacturing industry. The mining industry is taking a natural resource that belongs to the nation and selling it overseas. We object of large land estates being bought out by overseas interests - so why should we not object that we get no national value buy the sell-off of our mineral wealth where only a
few benefit. It would be like a few commercial companies selling off our water resources at great financial gain instead of it being shared by the nation.

Lexi,

Your assumption that others will rush in to invest in mining is not borne out by the facts. Not all new mining projects have the spectacular returns that some existing mines have. Many are pretty marginal. That Australia's share of global investment has dropped by 1/3 in the past 5 years shows that while the plum projects are proceeding, many others are not.

Just as with manufacturing. The profitable ones will survive Labor's carbon tax. Those struggling now will close their doors, and their employment and emissions will simply move overseas.