How dare this government, the unions and their supporters continue to accuse the miners of not paying their fair share of tax.

These miners are paying more tax than most and, they are working within the boundaries that have been laid out by the tax laws.

It's not their fault the goal posts have been shifted.

Now whether you support the MRRT or not, these miners must not be victimized by these continued accusations that they are somehow cheating tax.

It is unfair and misleading labor spin.

But rehctub, something doesn’t add up here. In fact there is the most enormous disparity.

This is; the disparity between the enormous wealth that is being generated by mining and has been for many years of boom times now, and the declining or at least stagnant quality of life, society, environment in this country!

Yes, there is a whole lot of inefficiency and just plain poor governance in the expenditure of public monies. And there is the absurd imposition of the extremely rapidly increasing demand for everything, generated moremostly by record high immigration.

But there is also a huge misallocation of the wealth being generated from our resources, into the pockets of the rich and NOT into the hands of the most needy or the average citizen.

I believe that our government needs to maximise the amount of wealth that it can gain from the mining industry. It needs to find the right balance between making mining unviable or pushing companies and jobs offshore and properly reaping the rewards offered by this amazing mineral wealth.

Currently, I don’t think we are anywhere near the right balance, and that considerably more tax should be paid by our big miners.

But there is also a huge misallocation of the wealth being generated from our resources, into the pockets of the rich..
Luddy,
of the rich ..and the countless counterproductive bureaucrats within the public service.
Add it up & you'll find more money goes to them than any other.
I'm afraid that isn't what you wanted people to hear but you lot don't divulge this sort of info.

Ludwig, the miners are paying the exact amount of tax they are required to.

Now if you want a bigger share of the min eral wealth, then that's what royalties are for a d, it is not the miners fault that the royalties are too low.

The part that annoys me is this suggestion thatbthey are some sought of tax cheats.

They are simply obiding by the law.

If the law is wrong, then change it, (at your perril i might add) but don't accuse someone of doing the wrong thing when there are not.

That's what this tread is about, not whether or not they are paying appropriate taxes.

For what its worth, Just on the sharing of wealth, the mechanism is there already, it's called, buying shares in the mining companies.

But Joe average doesn't want to do that, as that also means sharing the risks

They simply want their cake and they want to eat it as well. You simply cant have a foot in one door, but not the other, otherwise you risk loosing the golden goose.

Rechtub, you’ve given me heaps to respond to in those two posts!

<< …miners are paying the exact amount of tax they are required to. >>

Well I presume this is true. So it is the tax law and hence politicians that are at fault here.

<< …if you want a bigger share of the mineral wealth, then that's what royalties are for, it is not the miners fault that the royalties are too low >>

Fine. So, could you please briefly explain just what the difference is between mining taxes and royalties?

<< …this suggestion that they are some sought of tax cheats >>

Others may be suggesting this but I’m not implying that at all.

<< If the law is wrong, then change it >>

Agreed! That’s what I want to see.

<< … buying shares in the mining companies. But Joe average doesn't want to do that, as that also means sharing the risks >>

And you can’t blame them. We’re all very much aware that the mining boom has to end sooner or later, that China may start pulling back on its demand for various Australian resources before too long, that Europe’s woes may affect Australian finances, that the price of oil could rise pretty sharply at any time, etc, etc.

The risk in the share market is very real. And I would think most people just want to be able to invest and not have to study the damn thing every day to work out whether to buy or sell, but rather to just largely let it be and look after itself.

So it is not the way to share the wealth!

mining taxes and royalties?
Ludwig,
I'm told some of the indigenous landholders receive rather substantial royalties. I don't know how much tax they're required to pay. Is public housing provided to them or is that covered by the royalties ? It appears that the landholders aren't doing to badly out of mining.

Ludwig why should miners pay special taxes, when they have done all the work to find the ore bodies, then rip the wealth out of the ground, paying their workers very well along the way.

If any one should have to pay special taxes it should be the banks. They are government, [tax payer] guaranteed when ever the stuff hits the fan, but meanwhile, rip their excessive profit out of the that same tax payer. Meanwhile they are screwing their workers, & off shoring everything they can, including our private details.

If you want to bend anyone over a barrel, it should be the senior bank staff, rather than the miners. May I suggest you use a pineapple, rough end of course.

I've got no problem with how much tax miners pay, I object to how much they earn! The lowliest labourers working in a mine earn vastly more than say Day Care workers, who look after our children!
As for the moguls, they should be paying progressive taxation.

Agreed Hasbeen; more regulation and tax imposition wouldn’t go astray on our banks.

Special taxes for miners? Whether there be special (additional) taxes or just increases to existing taxes is moot. But bigger taxes; yes, definitely.

<< …why should miners pay special taxes, when they have done all the work to find the ore bodies, then rip the wealth out of the ground, paying their workers very well along the way. >>

Because they are making disproportionate profits from resources that are supposed to be owned by all Australians.

Surely it is just a fundamental duty of government to strive for the right balance between facilitating mining companies in developing our resources with the motivation of big profits, and making sure that the best possible returns to the community are gained from those resources.

This is a simple desire that I believe you would agree with?

The big miners have huge power and influence over governments, along with the rest of the vested-interest pro-growth lobby. So the profit balance is very strongly skewed in their favour… and needs to be swung back in the favour of the whole community.

I think that there is plenty of scope to do this without threatening the profit motive of mining companies or the high rates of pay they offer their workers…. although as Squeers points out, they are arguably earning a bit too much and should probably be brought a bit more in line with non-mining incomes across the country.

I must admit that I find the term bandied around by Labor "fair share" has nothing to do with fair and should simply be replaced by "more".

The moment anyone and is seen to make more than the politically correct profit, this is considered unfair, and this individual should be punished and taxed until he realizes that hard work is "un Australian".

Who owns these resources? Surely the owner of the resources can set a price on those resources? At present we seem to set a price that encourages rapid exploitation of these resources; it my be better if we ratchet the price up, i.e learn a lesson from OPEC and ensure that we get a long term benefit.
If we want to know what the future looks like when one depends on resources for one's wealth then look no further than Broken Hill.

Ludwig, the other side of the coin.

36 years ago, I spent a bit of time in Bougainville. I met a bloke who was personal manager for the mine there. He told me of the problems getting good staff to go there.

When I ran into him about 10 years later he was human relations manager, [personal officer with a grand title], Of Cap Coal, a mine out from Kingaroy, & we became mates. When I reckoned they paid their people too much money, he disagreed. He believed that to get top people to live & work in bloody awful places, "the ass ole of the world he reckoned" they had to pay top dollar.

At one stage he told me he had head hunted a grader driver from Dampier WA, because he needed one who could & would do a top job of finishing the work on rehabilitation of finished areas.He told me that good grader drivers were born, not trained, can you believe that?

He also told me he was very happy that they had a long term contract to supply all their coal to a government power houses, as Japan had forced the price of coal down to below the cost of production, & most were loosing big money. He expected about a 25% closure of existing mines. He was right.

If only we had a government who could temper their spending urge, perhaps we could slow the boom a little, spreading it over a longer period.

Many years a mate of mine, in the coal industry spent some years in the UK. He could see that the only thing keeping the UK afloat, was North Sea Oil. Their madly spending governments were frittering away all they could rip out of that industry. A quick glance at the UK today proves him right.

I really don't want to see our madly spending government do the same. All they do is generate even more expectation of handouts, which are not sustainable after the boom subsides. I'd rather see it go to those who work in the industries.

<< He believed that to get top people to live & work in bloody awful places … they had to pay top dollar. >>

Agreed Hasbeen. But you’ve got to admit, there is a huge discrepancy between the wages of even the ‘lowliest labourers in the mines and many highly skilled and experienced people outside of the mining arena.

I was a professional botanist and ecologist at a reasonably high rank before I quit last year. Many years’ experience and knowledge won me that position. But I was not on anything like the income of the most basic mine labourer!

In fact, I constantly thought about going and working in the mines instead, as I did 30 years ago, and indeed still do now that I’m getting close to ‘unretiring’ and re-entering the workforce.

Maybe miner workers get what they deserve to work in isolated places. Afterall, it is hard to imagine that their companies would pay them more than they need to. Or maybe there is considerable scope for wage adjustment.

<< If only we had a government who could temper their spending urge, perhaps we could slow the boom a little, spreading it over a longer period. >>

Yes but it is not the government’s great urge to spend money that is the problem in the first instance, it is enormous number of things that need money to be spent on them, generated first and foremost by (here we go again) record high immigration!

Net zero immigration, then after a while, a slow-down in government spending and a pull-back on the scale of mining. That’s what we need. We need to draw the boom out…..and (for the fifty thousandth time) use this wealth to steer us directly towards a sustainable society!

So let’s not attack the government for their spending regime but rather; attack them for creating the ongoing demand that necessitates this scale of spending.

and the wage of top union officials who do what? and who pays for them?

Miners are paying comparatively less tax now than they did when Fraser opened the doors and let them in to help themselves to what are really our national resources.

We are seen as among the best value-for-money mining opportunities in the world despite their whining. Mining has around 28% profit margin compared to 8% for everybody else. That's profit - after costs are removed.

Unfortunately these resources won't grow back and when they are gone, they are gone forever and all we'll have left are holes in the ground.

Mines are about 83% foreign owned and the last attempt to nationalise those resources for the long-term was made by Rex Connor during the Whitlam years and like the previously democratic governments of Iran, Iraq, Chile and Argentina who tried the same thing, that government was removed.

Since nationalising them is off the agenda, then creating some sort of long-term national benefit from the proceeds is the next best option.

Remember that it's our taxes that pay for the roads, railways, electricity and ports that they use so as well as giving them a cheap deal, we also subsidise them in other ways.

If they don't like it they can go elsewhere. I'm sure that local miners would be happy to take those leases back out of foreign hands.

Some statistics -

For every dollar of iron ore sales that was exported from Australia over 2011:

1. The balance of trade rose by a dollar.
2. Australian workers and contractors received 12 cents in wages and salaries
3. 19 cents was spent in royalties, equipment and others costs
4. The government received 11 cents in company tax
5. Australian owners made 12 cents in profit
6. Foreign owners made 40 cents in profit.

Now tell me again, who is being ripped off here?

Rache, Wobbles

Cherry picking figures are we? Quoting direct from the greens pamphlet?

I see no allowance for cost of capital, and you forget to mention that these foreign owned companies own many mining operations overseas, from which Australian owners get profits. For starters.

The rest of these figures are also suspect.

*The lowliest labourers working in a mine earn vastly more than say Day Care workers, who look after our children!*

Well I should hope so, Squeers. Those day care workers are doing
in downtown Melbourne or Sydney, what comes naturally to females
in a cushy environment. Ask them if they want to head up into the
heat, the dust and the flies of the outback Pilbara, where its
commonly 40 degrees plus and they are away from their families
and they might not be so keen on that miners wage, where a good
share goes in tax anyhow.

*Foreign owners made 40 cents in profit.*

In that case Rache, you had better rush out with your life savings
and pour the money into buying BHP shares, so that as an Australian
owner, you keep more of the profits here. But I have some bad
news for you. For your investment of around 32$ a share, you will
get a return of around 50c, twice a year, so about a dollar in all.
Perhaps you need to recheck your figures.

Shadow Minister,

The summary I quoted was taken from the following publications -

ABARES. (2011). Australian Commodities March Quarter 2011. ABARES.
ABARES. (2011). Major Development Projects April 2011 Listing. ABARES.
ABS cat 5302. (2011). Primary Income Debits Table 21. ABS.
ATO. (2011). Taxation Statistics 2008-09. Australian Government.
Australian Budget Economic Forecasts. (2011). Statement 2 Economic Outlook.
BHP. (2011). Interim Results 31 December 2010. BHP.
Deloitte. (2011). Gloucester Coal Ltd - Independent Experts Report. Gloucester Coal.
Economic References Committee, T. S. (2009). Foreign investment by state-owned entities. Commonwealth Government.
Foreign Investment Review Board. (2011). Annual Report 2009-10. Commonwealth Government.
Harris, J., & Hawkins, J. (2006). How international investment income flows affect Australia's balance of trade. Treasury.
Mudd, M. (2009). The sustainability of mining in Australia - key production trends. Mineral Policy Institute.
Treasury . (2010). RSPT Forecast.

I didn't quote the Opposition or a string of populist media catch phrases.
Capital wasn't mentioned because it was only about only the profit and I assume the capital cost is the difference.

Yabby,
BHP Billiton is 76% foreign owned and Rio Tinto is at 83% and are both listed as foreign companies.

Together they represent around 70% of all listed foreign resources.
The remainder are very small or totally foreign owned.
BHP is as Australian as Holden (or McDonalds).

I have indirect investments in both via Superannuation funds but I think the community would benefit more from a better return via a fairer tax than an extra fraction-of-a-cent dividend return for me.

*BHP Billiton is 76% foreign owned and Rio Tinto is at 83% and are both listed as foreign companies.*

Rache, BHP is as much foreign owned, as Australians want it to be.
Australians are the world's biggest gamblers, throwing close to
20 billion bucks a year down those slot machines and similar, rather
then buying BHP shares. That is their choice.

If you take a closer look at the mining company profits, you will
find that the majority are actually invested in new mining projects,
which cost huge amounts. Just to develop Olympic Dam will cost
BHP something like 25 billion.

So the biggest beneficiaries of mining company profits are indeed
all Australians, via that half a trillion $ in new mining projects.
That means jobs, taxes, royalties, and all the rest, for generations
to come

Shadow Minister,
I would have quoted from Liberal or National Party Party documents if they contained any data but they are strangely silent on facts.
All they seem to do is promote common misconceptions with nothing to back them up.

Rache,

You forget that I can do a word search and find the actual document. If you selectively quote from the greens who have in turn cherry picked from other documents, it doe

These companies have vast mining resources all over the world, and remit the money to share holders all over the world. Australian share holders are getting profits from Africa, North and South America etc. I would bet that there is some activist in Africa saying that BHP shouldn't be allowed to send its profits to shareholders in Aus.

"Quoting selectively from the Greens" - who got their information from the official sources listed - isn't quite the same as quoting explicitly from an unsupported political Media release is it?

Apparently public perception and political spin is more important than fact. Using that sort of logic suggests that if we halve the tax miners pay, our benefits would automatically increase.

The sooner they come and haul all of it away, the sooner we'll all be rich enough to live under a Liberal government.

*6. Foreign owners made 40 cents in profit.
Now tell me again, who is being ripped off here?*

That was your claim, Rache. Clearly you don't think that
profits are high enough for owners, to put your own money on the
table to own the asset.

Perhaps you just want a free lunch, like so many, or perhaps you
are simply a sucker for spin.