With the mining tax set to pass through paliment, thanks mostly to the real PM Bob Brown, I just wonder how the industry, and those who feed from it will take the hit of both the tax, and the world largest (by far) carbon tax, passed in the same year.

I'm a bit of a risk taker, but that may well be to bigger risk for many.

This Tax, could well turn into an Axe!

Tax break for small business, is on and will be passed if the opposition agrees to support it.
Fortesque mining is wanting 1 billion dollars to fund expansions and upgrades. Should they get that money, as it will go on the deficit, until replaced.

Rehctub, can I please clarify your position: Are you totally against any mining tax, or any increase in mining tax above what has existed up until now?

Or do you see the need for a better return to the community and the average citizen from our national mineral wealth and a bit less into the pockets of the already enormously rich?

Are you totally against a carbon tax? Or do you see some need for us to mitigate carbon pollution or move away from our dependence on fossil fuels, if not for climate-change reasons, then for peak oil reasons? That is, to wean ourselves off of liquid fossil fuels and onto renewables before we are forced to by suddenly increasing prices and/or shortages of supply.

My view is that the mining tax will have absolutely no effect on mining investment whatsoever. Why do I assert that? Two reasons.
First, because since the mining tax was passed in the lower house, investment in mining in Australia has actually accelerated, to the point where the country's economy would be simply unable to digest much more, at least in the short term.
Second, while share prices of the major miners has eased slightly, this is consistent with the reduced demand from China that's being forecast. In other words, the mining tax passing the lower house had no impact on mining shares.
Moreover, I would argue that the way the industry trucked right on without a murmur when the tax passed the lower house, demonstrates the the advertising campaign mounted by the miners claiming that the tax would be the end of the world as we know it, was pure bovine excrement.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I reckon you are right Anthony. The mining tax, and the carbon tax, are baby steps. They really are ineffectual in themselves, unless they are first steps towards something much more substantial. But they aren’t; they’re the whole deal.

So it basically amounts to the government being seen to do something positive without doing anything meaningful at all.

*the advertising campaign mounted by the miners claiming that the tax would be the end of the world as we know it, was pure bovine excrement*

Not really, Anothony. I remind you that the campaign was against
the original suggestion as per Rudd, which was indeed draconian
and would have dramatically changed the investment decisions of
Rio, BHP and others.

The present mining tax was a renegotiation of the draconian and is
far more reasonable.

Given the 40% drop in coking coal prices however, there is going to
be far less left to tax, then people might have thought.

Big Joe says, the opposition is not negative being apposed to tax cuts, they are just being consistent. Just something else to say no to.
Butch is someways just like Arjay, he has a box full of conspiracy's under the bed.

"When they reached the mountain summit,even Clancy took a pull". The immortal lines from The Man from Snowy River would be a good suggestion for our mining industry.

This mining tax however, as designed is a very bad way to apply that pull, designed as it is to get our government out of the hole it has dug for itself, but better than none I suppose. We have to slow the growth in mining, if not actually total mining, & there may be some good arguments to do that as well.

However this deal, giving the big three a huge boost against all the lesser miners is not the right way. This just continues Labor's love affair with the largest companies in the land.

But Ludwig Mate. What is carbon pollution? I can't believe that anyone not on the gravy train could possibly believe, in view of all the recent research, climate gate, catching the IPCC out with so much propaganda with no basis & the lies, cheating & data manipulation, that global warming is true.

That being a fact, what is your carbon pollution, & why does it not occur in China when they burn our coal?

So the fact is, coal is good, get that right for one. Then mate you pull this old hairy peak oil rubbish. Recent exploration, & harvesting techniques has proven more oil under North America, than the known reserves in the rest of the world. Add to that the gas from fracking, & we have centuries of energy. Obama is resisting the exploitation of this resource, because most of his campaign donors are in the alternative energy con, mostly funded by the US taxpayer, courtesy of the same Obama.

So far there is not a single alternative energy system that is even vaguely as efficient as coal & gas. They only survive while funded by huge subsidies from the poor long suffering tax payer.

A bit less wishful thinking by green tinged folk would save the rest of us a lot of money we just can't afford to continue wasting.

Ludwig, yes, I am against the mining tax, as I see it as unfair.

The wealth does not belong to Australia, it belongs to the states, more so, it belongs to the towns where the minerals are deposited.

These now 'boom towns' were but a spec on the map, amd while some knew of them, they had never been there, nor did they have any desire to do so.

In other words, they had no interest until Rudd decided there were fruits for the picking.

Finally, if you wish to distribute state taxes, nationally, then all state taxes must be evenly distributed, not just the mining revenues.

In my view, a levy on the miners wages, paid by the mines, used to subsidize non mining would be a better choice, especially given that the workers come from all ove the country, not just the mining towns.

Now as for the carbon tax, it's just another money grab and, so long as the tax is paid, by all means keep polluting.

An ETS would be much smarter.
having said this, emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels, among other causes, so, it doesn't matter where they are burned, the emissions are created.
so unless we have some invisible barrier, that stops the likes of Chinas emissions leaving China, what's the diff.

My other concern is that we produce about 1 or 2% of the overall emissions, so why the massive tax?

Finally, if we ceased to exist, the rest of the planet would hardly know, at least not until their boats return home empty.

I hope this clarifies my position and, as always thanks for the input.

Of cause , I remain ready and willing to be proven wrong.

BTW, today's mining projects are not the ones that are of concern..

The Dark Side of Carbon
As interest in Earth's changing climate heats up, a tiny dark particle is stepping into the limelight: black carbon. Commonly known as soot, black carbon enters the air when fossil fuels and biofuels, such as coal, wood, and diesel are burned. Black carbon is found worldwide, but its presence and impact are particularly strong in Asia.

Black carbon, a short-lived particle, is in perpetual motion across the globe. The Tibetan Plateau's high levels of black carbon likely impact the region's temperature, clouds and monsoon season.

Image Credit: NASA

Iron Ore mining belongs to AU as a whole, any reason to say otherwise has long past it's use by date.
All the states get is royalty.
To say the tax is unfair or unsustainable is somewhat petty. The extent of this mining is enormous, and getting bigger.
The mining industry owes AU fair and just taxes for the exploitation of natural wealth.
As you observe the iron ore bodies are taken of the surface and AU will be left with the real mining.

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

I agree with 579's summation and would add that this nation has one set of mineral resource. Once they're gone, they're gone.
Every Australian in part owns those resources. Okay, there's the "possessions of the crown" issue, but the practical reality is that minerals are a national asset.
Therefore, every Australian should share in the vast profits generated by mining those national resources.
The only practical way is via a tax on the "super profits"..
Furthermore, if those mining tax revenues fund tax relief for smallbusinesses, then that would go some way to easing the difficulties caused by the two speed economy.
And that helps everyone, directly or indirectly as it helps small business to survive and to employ.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

*Iron Ore mining belongs to AU as a whole, any reason to say otherwise has long past it's use by date.*

So 579, are you saying that the Australian constitution is invalid
and has passed it use by date?

The thing is, West Australian taxpayers have to wear all the
infrastructure costs associated with all this new mining growth,
but you leeches want to take most of the profits. Hardly a fair
deal.

Yabby, by "leeches" i assume you mean the majority of Australians who do not live in WA.
That would be the same leeches who supported WA back when it didn't have a mining boom going on.
Much of that infrastucture was paid for by a disproportionately high percentage (on a population basis) of GST revenue given to WA bach when it had too small a population to fund such expenditure on its own.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Rechtub you got of to a flyer here.
I know you well enough to understand you truly think the mining tax could kill mining in this country.
No chance bloke, not any.
And considering the nature of Conservatives fear campaign no wounder some believe.
You will see some say other country's will get our miners, they already have BHP is one of many mining in other country's.
If I could just have one wish, just and only one, it would be to revisited the ideas that climate change is fraud, this tax unneeded or harmful, in 20 years.
Have no chance of doing that but others could if they wish, look at past concerns.
Like the introduction of Child welfare payments, said to be communism even by the COE.

Yes Yabby, that is the issue here, that being, sharing the risks, not just the spolis.

Assuming the worst, that being the demand completely drops off, to a point whereby the minerals are not worth while mining, what then.

Do you think the likes of 579 would be happy to prop up the west and QLD to help pay for these unused, un paid for assetts.

Anton, the last thing small business wants is tax cuts. Unless of cause your idea of small business is coles and wollies.

What they really want is making running their businesses easier.

Say the have a before tax profit of $150,000 and, they get a 2% tax cut. Big deal, that's less than a night out at the movies each week and, assuming there is anothe pay rise of say 4%, there goes your movie tickets.

If any government wants to help small business, remove the hurdles surrounding employing.

*Much of that infrastucture was paid for by a disproportionately high percentage (on a population basis) of GST revenue *

Err what year was that Anthony and how much was paid? I remind
you that we are talking billions for infrastructure. WA has
always carried its weight by being the major export state. 10%
of the population generates nearly half the country's export revenue.
Without us, you would frankly be a banana republic.

Decades ago, WA did indeed get some help, in return for being forced
to buy shoddy and overpriced Eastern states manufactured goods,
increasing input costs for our export industries, so hardly a free
lunch.

The GST carve up stinks, it really does. Just give us back our
GST or my point remains, we wear the ongoing costs and you lot
are the leeches. That is tyranny by the majority. No wonder I support
WA seceding. I stick up for what is fair and just.

All very well, Yabby, but you still haven't confirmed that you consider the majority of Australians to be leeches.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

There is more than tax cuts in the small business plan.
You will know the full story in a couple of weeks.
Yabby's proposal is very short sighted to rely on one commodity, for his new identity. A sudden downturn and you will be in ruins.

Anthonyve, you seem to forget the millions transferred from the west Qld, & even little Tasy paying too much for all those manufactured goods produced in NSW & Vic, when their industry was protected by import duties.

Even worse a large percentage paid in duties for imported goods went to the two manufacturing states. If there is any debt between states, the rust bucket states still owe it to the rest.

Just a couple of years back I remembering Victoria bitching it's head off, when Queensland demanded university places Oz wide be distributed on a per capita basis. They had some condescending take on why they deserved 6000 more places than they would get on a per capita basis.

Yes I'm sure they want a bit of the larger states action. I'm sure they hate seeing money wasted on building something better than goat tracks where the money comes from. Good roads, & medical services are for the civilised states, & even then, only for the capitals really.

After we have some decent roads, medical specialists with in 1000 Km of where we live & work, & such infrastructure, perhaps there'll be some to spread around, meanwhile, they should, like Britain, live on the memory of past glories.

With regard to the mining tax the fundamental question being argued here is whether the purpose of the mining industry should be to benefit the Australian economy and thereby the people of the country or simply as a means of wealth production for trans-national companies and a handful of locals.
Personally I believe that the royalty/license model was not the best option and has weighted the gains very heavily in favour of the many companies concerned. We have turned our GOLDMINE over to them. We remain open to continued investment by those who can afford it, so this situation will remain until we run out of resources. Wouldn’t we all like to be getting a share of this pie?
Of course if everybody had been offered shares to float a people’s mining company those who invested would be open to accusations of being “leftist", “collectivist”, “anti-capitalist” or some other inanity. This takes us full circle and also raises the question; would we as a people rather support the very system of capitalism which screws us or alternatively grasp it and make it work for us? If the governments of Australia are genuinely intent on pulling back something more for the country from the mining industry through higher taxation we should be supporting them but also making it abundantly clear that we’re not at all happy with the licensing system as it stands.
With regard to climate change, whichever side of this debate dominates ones thinking it should be recognised that climatologists have never before been so well equipped for the task of collecting and assessing the information available, secondly that common sense suggests that mankind cannot necessarily expect that the earths biosphere will accommodate the huge amounts of pollution being emitted daily without at sometime showing signs of breaking down. It is also worth noting that in terms of human liveability, the mantle of air covering the planet only goes up five kilometres to where the oxygen level is half that at sea level.
DEN71

It's worth pointing out, mainly for Yabbie's benefit, that the correct name for our nation is "Commonwealth of Australia".
Perhaps he, or she, though I suspect Yabbie is a he, needs to learn the meaning of the word 'commonwealth'.'
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Considering the relatively small level of aus. carbon emmisions compared with the vast potential from the coal exported it strikes me as extremely hypocritical of the government to be imposing a tax within this country. Futhermore I fail to see that our carbon tax will make one iota of difference on a global scale.
In terms of employment and wealth production in this country we are hamstrung. On the one hand we are being ripped off in the area of resource extraction and on the other hand our workforce cannot afford to compete in a global market which exploits slave labour in the free export zones of south east Asia. There are in excess of 30 million people around the planet employed in these sweatshops at wages as little as two dollars a twelve hour day. Even those manufacturers who survive in this country will always be competing in this very uneven playing field.
DEN71

*for Yabbie's benefit, that the correct name for our nation is "Commonwealth of Australia".*

Perhaps Anthony, you should read the Australina constitution and
give me a reason why you now think that it is now invalid.

After all, we don't try to claim a share of the billions which
the Eastern States earn from their pokies taxes.

Yabby,
Interesting how, when you are confronted with the illogicality of you're own position, you fake someone else's position and attack that.
It's called "Building a strawman".
At no time did I say that the constitution was invalid; I did not even mention the constitution.
I simply made oblique reference to the meaning of the word "Commonwealth" in our nation's title, meaning Common Wealth, or Wealth in Common, as a way of illuminating the sheer sillines of your assertion that the majority of Australians are - in your own words -"Leeches".
Perhaps you simply had a rush of blood and should acknowledge that.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yabby,
In case you are still confused, please follow this link and you will find the "Commonwealth of Australia Act"
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

*At no time did I say that the constitution was invalid;*

Well you are clearly implying it. I remind you that according to
that constitution, minerals belong to the States, not the
Commonwealth. As it is offshore gas royalties do belong to the
Commonwealth. WA has to fund the infrastructure for those developments too.
Income taxes from workers go to the Commonwealth,
company taxes from the miners go to the Commonwealth. Even if you
are not aware of it, you all benefit from what we do here in WA.

Given our ever declining GST share, plus all the extra costs that
we have to wear, I think the term leeches is quite appropriate.
Fact is we are simply outvoted by the majority because WA is seen
as little more then a cash cow for the rest.

There is a simple solution, and that is to collect ALL state revenues, stamp duty, GST, pay roll tax, the proposed mining tax, if passed, everything, and put it in to consolidated revenue.

This should then be distributed evenly depending on population.

At least then , we here I. QLD can benefit from the melon median house price of around $700K.

What could possible be fairer than that?

Yes DEN71, climate people have never been in a position to collect & access information. Isn't a pity that they don't do that.

Even grater pity that they corrupt & distort, changing historical data, as if no one will notice.

Greater still is that those in academia chose to benefit from the climate change money, rather than bring some forced respectability to the field.

Hi Hasbeen,
Thanks, I love to start the day with a good laugh.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Rehctub, you wrote:

<< The wealth does not belong to Australia, it belongs to the states, more so, it belongs to the towns where the minerals are deposited. >>

Eh?? Surely the wealth DOES belong to Australia, and that means to all Australians, and certainly not to the towns near the deposits or where mining operations occur, nor to the mining companies.

<< Now as for the carbon tax, it's just another money grab and, so long as the tax is paid, by all means keep polluting.>>

Well, it would appear that you are not far wrong there. Pity it isn’t much more substantial so that it does have a significant impact on atmospheric carbon, or more to the point on the development of renewable energy sources and a society that will become largely based on them.

But if it IS a money grab, is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, the government struggles to gain the revenue necessary to keep all of our services up to scratch. All else being equal, more money in government coffers would mean better roads, education, health, etc… wouldn’t it?

And gaining extra money from a sector which needs to be made more sustainable, thus giving it incentive to do so, seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Laugh till you cry buddy, the planet has decided to show you lot up for what you are.

I see you are still ignoring any argument you don't have an answer for.

Even Germany has woken up, & is cutting subsidies to the renewable fraud.

The carbon tax is a broadening of the taxation base accompanied by reduction in income tax and compensatory measures for exporters . It will incentivize efficient energy usage and the seeking of alternatives to carbon based energy sources. This stuff about Oz going it alone to its own detriment is clap-trap if you understand all this. Furthermore we have a moral obligation to the planet to do so, undiminished by what other countries decide to do in relation to their obligation.

The mining tax is a "super" tax which is market linked, i.e goes up and down with profitability caused by commodity price changes. The states own the resources and charge royalties. The Commonwealth threatens reduction of GST share in line with any further royalty increases to stop undermining its tax. The Commonwealth promises contribution towards infrastructure costs related to mining. I write all this because it is apparent factual misunderstanding by some posters. The resources do not belong to the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth is playing dirty pool to ensure it gets its cut of the pie.

The only question I have is whether there should be a "super" tax on other industries doing well? Why can't Western Australians get a piece of the tourism pie in Queensland, for example. Does the Great Barrier Reef belong to Queensland or to the Commonwealth? What about the finance industries in NSW and Victoria, and wine in SA and apples and tourism in beautiful Tassy (beauty is an assett, isn't it)? Although the constitution doesn't support it, all Australians feel they have a stake in minerals in the ground, which are consumable, concrete assets, but not other assets. How about a super tax on all industries in all states with natural advantages?

Hasbeen,
Please stop.
It hurts to laugh so hard.
Who would have thought that a dinosaur could be so funny?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I really enjoyed listening to *Big Clive Palmer* last night. You get up em mate, great stuff.

I am pro Australian business and would provide them favourable conditions that they may grow and outgrow the need for international companies to be predating upon our assets, notwithstanding the amount of shareholdings Australians have with them.

How it is that we can can make scram jets and HSV's but can't get it better together for Ozzie miners is beyond me. In that regard, my concern about an additional tax in part turns on the overall tax burden and its effect upon the pension/welfare/working poor base?

Notwithstanding the shadow of the ACCC, I am not confident that prices will not go up beyond the proposed compensation and if it happens on mass, the ACCC will be overwhelmed, and here again, how long is that they will have to play with their pencils to get any results?

No, I would prefer to see a tithe at cost from the miners for the benefit of our local manufacturers in materials, to provide a competitive edge to in part to offset the need to compete with a high dollar and against the subsistence slaves of places like China.

Additionally, in terms of foreign investment, I would bring pressure to bare such that if the likes of China do not wish to allow Australian businesses equivalent and equitable access to their local markets, then I would cap ex them out from being able to participate here, and the same goes for the rest of the internationals.

This could could be cap-exed in to maintain supply in the local company growth period, and or alternatively could be tailored to include such things as a reliable share of rare earths, again say in the case of China.

*Yabby* if you're a SandGroper, how come you're not a *CooNack* with claws instead of a *Yabby?*

..

Con:

3. ... and also, if .. is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal CommonWealth under the name of the CommWealth of Australia. ...

I much prefer the older copies of the Con and really can't stand the sanitised more recent additions.

..

I have heard it said that there was in fact a WA State referendum and the people of WA did actually vote to cede. As to whether or not that is true, and as to whatever else transpired, I do not know.

A much better idea would be a simple law, that any mining company in Oz has to source all its hardware from Oz manufacturers, made from Oz raw materials.

This would spread the wealth through out the country, at the same time stopping the likes of our Julia getting hold of most of it to waste on public servants, & campaign donors.

Next we should reduce academia by 30% & use the money thus saved, to make trade schools free. Currently you pay up front for trade courses, but stick that uni course on hex. Uni courses should be made to concentrate on skills we are currently importing. A quick stroll around Perth will convince you that it is the most prosperous pommy city on earth. It should be our graduates earning those big bucks, & would be if we just had the right courses.

With less arts grads flipping burgers, & more trades folks, & plenty of medium heavy manufacturing, we just might get an economy again.

The only thing left to do would be to outlaw the words might, could probably & possibly from any learned paper, with mandatory jail sentences for offenders. We then just possibly, could, may be, probably, possibly get some sense out of our researchers. At least if we didn't we could sue their ass off for lying to us.

Some posters here have wrongly stated the AU futures fund, had been depleted since labor came to office.
The futures fund holds 70 billion $.
This misinformation of depletion, believed to be distributed by the noalition, for their own agenda.
Tax cuts for miners and small business and a host of other benefits, continue to be suppressed by the noalition, who seem to have lost their way.
Revenue from miners are to be spread far and wide for the benefit of all Australians.

Yes *HasBeen* a tithe plus some the favourable conditions for Oz business's that you have indicated could be a very good thing.

I don't know that I would free them entirely from having to compete against imports, but certainly I am in favour of giving oz biz the means to be able to compete.

..

CHAPTER V. THE STATES

114. A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a state.

..

So it begs the questions as to whose property it is, and whether or not the so called "mining tax" is actually a tax specifically on property.

(Of course Con Law is indeed a complex area, and that is just a quick shot off the hip from a lay person.)

Luciferase, you make a good point as this is exactly where I am coming from.

If you wish to take revenue from state assets(mining tax), then you must distribute ALL STATE REVENUE.

As for the promised cuts to business offered by the tax, what happens if commodity prices fall off. They must do one day. Then what?

As for super profits, why not the banks.

After all, we, the tax payers, propped them up during the GFC, only to have them take an additional $5million odd per day by way of not passing on the interest rates cuts.

Carbon tax.

What is the point of collecting tax from some, then giving it back to others, simply to pay for the increases generated by the tax in the first place.

There is enough evidence to suggest it will cost jobs, as every cent passed on to business will be passed on to the consumer and that in itself should be grounds enough to at least reconsider the amount of tax.

The mining tax is not on the minerals in the ground but on the profits of mining. It's a layer of tax over and above normal company tax paid. That's why it's called a "super" tax and it is adjusted according to market movements in commodity prices.

Through the tax the Commonwealth seeks to to cash in on the rise in commodity prices by extorting states to cap royalties under the threat of a reduction in the GST pie equal to the rise in state revenue from raising royalty levels. The Commonwealth promises assistance to maintain and improve infrastructure supporting mining.

The majority of Australians support this because they do not live in mining states and will be nett beneficiaries while the minority living in mining states the will start at roughly a nett zero position with the introduction of the tax and gradually do worse from there as they can never raise royalty levels from that point onwards.

In 1930 or '31, WA voted to secede and a bunch set off to England to deal with the paperwork. It all fell in a heap somehow or another due to the complexities involved, AFAIK. The state's natural advantages will now become the nation's.

Why doesn't the Commonwealth simply buy a controlling interest in mining company shares, compulsorily or otherwise, rather than effectively dispossessing the mining states?

rechtub asks "What is the point of collecting tax from some, then giving it back to others, simply to pay for the increases generated by the tax in the first place."

The answer is to shift the entire tax base to encourage tax avoidance by more efficient use of fossil fuels and/or by the use of alternative energies.

Neither a carbon tax nor a mining tax will cause the sky to fall in despite the powerful with vested interests telling us so.

Luciferase, if it's not a tax on the minerals, but on profits, as you say, then why not on all Super profits?

The banks make a killing, fail to pass on rate cuts, and get propped up by the tax payer.

Why are they not on the super profits target list.

Furthermore, what is a 'super profit', as I know people who have started a business on less than ten grand, yet make $200 K per year.

Why is that not a super profit?

' The majority of Australians support this because they do not live in mining states

And for the past 90 odd years, they have not wanted anything to do with them.

Now as for avoiding tax, there is a solution, it's called a transaction tax, whereby money is taxed, not workers, not companies, just money.

Just I imagine to boost to our economy if all we ever paid was 1 or 2 % tax.

It has been said that this tax would eliminate EVERY OTHER FORM OF TAX, yet the powers to be won't go there.

*The banks make a killing, fail to pass on rate cuts, and get propped up by the tax payer*

You keep harping on about this Rehctub, but you remain confused.

The texpayer never propped up banks. In fact the taxpayer earned
an extra 1.5 billion from banks, without spending a cent. Had
the Govt not gone guarantor during the GFC, given the extra overseas
loan costs, business loans and home loans would have gone through
the roof. So it was a win-win for both the taxpayer and the consumer.

Banks return on equity is no more then well run butcher shops. So
do we put a super profits tax on those too?

When the RBA drops the loan rate, that does not mean that the banks
cost of funds drops by the same amount. It depends on their overseas
cost of funds. Like any business, they try to pass on costs. Just
like you did, in your butcher shop.

Another 118,000 retail jobs to go according to ABC24 ticket tape this morning.

..

*RehTub* I believe from has from his hands on experience in small business has an awareness that there are issues in the smooth flow and profitability of his business.

As to what they are in reality and what may be potential solutions for them remains a matter to be succinctly articulated, though I note there have been plenty of refutations as to what the underlying causes are not.

..

Well *Yabby*, if not a *CooNack,* what about a *Jilgy?*

Dream on, the main problem with retail, should I say, small Retsil businesses, is that in most cases they net less today than they did ten years ago.

This is due to the costs associated with running a business.

My business alone, has about $100,000 more in annual expenses than it did 20 years ago.

In fact, 20 years ago, a butcher turning over $8000 per week with a GP of 30% made more than that same business today (net) with a 50% GP.
G
That simply means the consumer has paid the difference.

Yabby, banks make a fortune, the borrow our money at say 5%, then lend it out at 7.5%, that's a 50% mark up, not bad when billions are involved.

As for OS borrowings, I would suggest the exchange rate works in their favor as well.

I will admit though, I am a bit out of my depth when it comes to banking.

BTW, there is a fair chance Clive Palmer will win his case if so it will be back to the drawing board for madam PM with yet another failed policy.

Now if this is the case, just how much of this incompetence do we have to endure.

I will admit though, I am a bit out of my depth when it comes to banking.*

Fair enough Rehctub, thanks for your honesty.

As to foreign borrowings, no bank would risk foreign exchange losses,
so all borrowing are hedged. I remind you of some 20 year or so ago,
when all those people, lots of farmers too, borrowed cheaply in
Swiss Francs. Next thing the Australian Dollar dropped and people
suddenly owed 40% more then they started with.

Our banks try to maintain a spread of around 2.2%, but are struggling
to do that. Yes its a huge business, as there are huge amounts of
loan involved. Also lots of risk. If those property developers go
broke, somebody wears the loss. If businesses go broke, somebody pays.
All banks lose money on bad loans, every year.

I remind you that European shareholders have just lost their shirts,
because banks lent to Govts like Greece! If people want to borrow
money from banks, bank shareholders will not put up the risk capital
involved, unless it justifies the risk.

If you think that bank shareholders are making far too much money,
why don't you buy some bank shares?

DreamOn, yabbies, koonaks and gilgies are all various species of
freshwater crustaceans. The WA yabby came here in the 1930s from
Miram Swamp near Nihl in Victoria. It is now the most common species
of crustacean in WA. Koonaks and Gilgies are in fact quite rare

Posted by rehctub, Friday, 16 March 2012 7:53:30 PM

" ... *DreamOn* the main problem with retail, .. small Retail businesses, is that in most cases they net less today than they did ten years ago. This is due to the costs associated with running a business. ... "

Yes, a lot of the people that I am familiar with who own restaurant businesses in Fremantle claim that they spend 5 days of the week paying the rent and only 2 days making a modest profit.

..

" ... BTW, there is a fair chance Clive Palmer will win his case .. ... "

Well, if the States get involved and are able to expand the action to include things like tip sites etc it will likely become more interesting, but as most of them have sold off the people's electricity generators they are no longer considered State property for Constitutional purposes which is a shame for more reasons than one i.m.o.

..
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 16 March 2012 8:51:07 PM

*DreamOn* yabbies, koonaks and gilgies are all various species of
freshwater crustaceans. .. Koonaks and Gilgies are in fact quite rare ... "

Interesting that you say the Koonak is now rare as having spent a lot of time in the WA bush as a young fella I can tell you from north of Corrigin, to as far east as Lake King to down south Esperance way, I never went for a weekender at any cockies farm who didn't have Koonaks (distinguishable by their claws) in their dam. Their were regular p!ss ups following an afternoon of drop netting.

*Yabbies* of course were indeed claimed to be an eastern states variety.

Occasionally in the local markets here there are still Koonaks on offer so it surprises me that you say that they are now rare.

Of course, the issue remains as to how a self confessed loyal *Sand Groper* ended up with an eastern states imports name.

;-)

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/IdCrayfish/IdCrayfishPage05.php?00

There you go DreamOn, learn the difference between them. What most
people call Koonaks or Gilgies in dams, are in fact yabbies.
Its a great way to win a carton at the pub, because few people
actually know the difference.

Ok, so the tax is in, so what do you labor supporters suggest we do if this tax has a negative effect.

I don't think sorry will cut it for anyone who looses their job, due to either this, or the carbon tax.

But then again, sorry is not a word in their vocab, at least not in the past four years and ten odd stuff us.

I just hope and pray labor has got it right, as it's a huge risk.

But at least the everage small business owner can enjoy a night out at the movies, thanks the HUGE 1% tax cut.

$20 to $30 per week, that's it!

Thanks for that *Yappy*

Indeed, now having looked at the linky, the pictures of the *Yabbies* are by far the most consistent with my early childhood memories of them. Hmmm .. not *KooNacks* as I was told at that time at all ey?

..

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/IdCrayfish/IdCrayfishPage03.php?00

" ... Gilgies can be commonly found in most streams, rivers and irrigation dams in the South West, ... "

But rare you say?

..

and then there were the "marron" which we also snorkelled for around *Collie* before the dam. Must have been somewhere around '76 - '78 from memory and without looking any further.

..

*RehcTub*

I gather "Sole Traders" miss out on the tax altogether though?

DreamOn, as it happens, astacology is something that I know a bit about.

Put it this way, there are 90'000 farm dams in WA, I know of two
which contain koonaks, the rest are yabbies. I know of one girl
who did actually find some gilgies down in a creek, that is the only
time I've known of them to occur. Yes marron are around, but they
need alot more oxygen in the water then yabbies, so they are mainly
found in the deep South West, like Collie, Margaret River etc.
A few people try to grow them in farm dams, with limited success.

Both yabbies and marron are exported from WA, to the East and to
overseas, although the industry has dramatically shrunk with the
droughts and increased cropping in the wheatbelt.

So yes, what they all told you were koonaks or gilgies, were probably
yabbies.

*RehcTub*

On an older issue, I got a most pleasant surprise the other day. After shopping at *WoolWorths,* which we rarely do, I unwrapped my raw *CrackLer* only to discover that it was actually really well cut for crackling. Not perfect mind you, but 90%+ and the best effort I've ever seen to date.

That's not to say that I believe that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but rather that in the entirety of my limited life experience, I have otherwise not received one.

I have to do another one in a couple of weeks to try to try and improve the cooking technique and enhance my crackle yield though. Me *Jumbo Barbie* needs to read 230degC before I start getting any crackling action.

A new technique I read recently in a mag when in the waiting room at a hospital not so long ago of tipping boiling water on the skin post a wash (in our case traditional Indo style) pre cooking also worked out really well.

I do so Luv the other white meat and flesh of the swine, from time to time.

Ah and I see *Yabby* is a BlakFella word too ey? So, not only an eastern states import, but its not the not the correct tribal name for your region.

We'll have to put it down to a case of *Yabby WalkAbout*

HaHaHa

..

Hmmm .. is there any advantage to the propagation of the indigineous KooNack and Gilgie's? .. It makes me wonder what else may be achieved through "direct action" visa vi carban change and native plant heat synchs to give some additional habitat to re-invigorate local spieces of wildlife even within city and suburban areas.

Way too much water is wasted in some places trying to sustain certain plant species.

..

A mate did a professional video for the aquaculture industry some years ago which I saw. .. They're a favourite feed of mine which I haven't had for some time now, now that I think about it.