David see? you speak the whole and absolute truth.
Rechtub has no wish to hear or understand , the question asker too is comfortable throwing rocks, not haveing truth returned.
TBC I think remains a green, but thinks rather than see your truth watering it down, by diversion,is a plan.
Before some comment on tax's mining carbon or any, they should arm them selves with the facts.
Kerry Packer, in my view speaking for most rich Australians said these words at a Parliament inquiry.
* any one who does not try to pay as little tax as he has to is insane*
Rich people are rarely insane, ok yes I forgot, except Palmer!

*14% is not sufficient tax on companies making massive profits from Australian resources.*

Well they are not just paying 14% tax. They are making siginficant
investments into new mining developments, which are of course
deductible as legitimate business expenditure, as they should be.

If you want BHP to spend 25 billion to develop a venture such as
Olympic Dam, you can hardly expect that investment not to be tax
deductible. The difference with mining and other industries is that
miners spend billions building ports, rail lines and mines, unlike
banks, who don't need to spend billions building new banks.

The miners would pay more tax if they stopped developing new mines,
but that would hardly be in Australia's long term interest.

Poor Belly, belly-aching again.

I have no qualms about the mining tax, or the carbon tax but would comment that Swan and Gillard messed up both and have failed to capitalise on the initiative, which, if I am not mistaken, was forced upon the ALP by the Greens.

Gillard advised Rudd not to go there, remember?

Swan failed to take the Henry review and apply it, just as Howard failed to take, was it the Campbell review? and apply that, leaving it to Hawke and Keating to do the work of the conservatives, with Kelty and the ACTU.

Swan and Gillard have squandered their time, as Rudd did before them, although, of course, Swan Rudd, Tanner and Gillard were all complicit in Rudd's failures too.

I will bet the miners would jump a a system that makes them pay 30% tax on every dollar (gross) that they turn over.

The flip side would be thatbthe government foots the bills for exploration and, they fund the losses.

The mining execs are far smarter than the pollies, so my bet is they will find a way around this mining tax, simply because they can.

I used to say when Kerry Packer was at his peak, our chief accountant (the treasurer) was on about two hu dred grand a year, while his was on two million.

Who is do you think was the better of the two.

Because of the money on offer for pollies, we generally only get to choose from those the corporate world didn't want.

Yabby, you either misunderstood or chose to ignore parts of my post.

I support the tax breaks, to encourage R&D and to get the investment and projects off the ground, as you say.

However, I also support companies paying a fair share of tax when they are making huge profits, which some of these companies are certainly making.

It should also be pointed out that the MRRT is deductable in regards to company income tax. (So by paying the MRRT, the company reduces its other tax obligations).

David, figures for companies like BHP are fairly public and are
well known. At the time of the mining tax debate, it was shown that
around 42% of BHPs profits were going in various Govt taxes, royalties
etc.

Where is all this money going overseas? No more per share goes
overseas then stays here and if you own a BHP share, your 30$ will
pay you around a dollar return, hardly mind blowing. The rest is
largely invested by BHP in new mining ventures.

Now if you want more profits to be paid locally, the only option
for the company is to cut back on investments in new projects.

If you want more of mining companies profits to stay in Australia,
perhaps Australians should stop throwing tens of billions of $ down
the pokies and buy some BHP shares instead.